To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?

gooooogle

Not everything you google comes from books. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Adoption_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea_to_Russia#Treaty

So your statement is false.

Guy Gadbois.  Google that.

Hello! First day on the internet?

http://ftp.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/USA-E-Breakout-32.html

From

http://ftp.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/index.html

Ok, so you guys went from "library" to "archeological expedition" in a hurry.

if the complaint is that google does not (yet) have infinite knowledge of all things in time and space, then I can't help you, and neither can your local library.

This eternal priveledged sniffing about university library access does little good to the 12 year old, the too old, the non-students (I no longer have a parking permit), the ones who need information now, not 3 hours from now, the ones who work too long to have the leisure time to dance around libraries, etc etc.

I went to a University both before and after the internet arrived. As I recall, there were not huge throngs of people in the library, and what few were there were pretty much all students.

Now, google gives everyone access to a very high level of information (The largest in the known universe), far more than most people will need or use in a lifetime, of course (it almost seems ridiculous to bother saying that).

Everyone. No longer a priestly few, a la the library of Alexandria. We all know what happened there when information was restricted to just a few and not of benefit to the general public? Did the common man bother to defend the library? What use was it to him?

The complaining here makes increasingly little sense to me. Its as if someone enjoyed a priveldged status of guarded information once, and now is upset that the information is freely available to everyone despite their "status". If you have a curious intellect and access to google, thats all it takes. Its something to be celebrated for lovers of learning, not cursed. Explore the universe at 3:00 am. Its yours.

I've read it, have you? Breakout and Pursuit is not only inaccurate, but it doesn't really say much of anything about the battle of Mons. Why don't you try and summarize what it says, and you'll see how little you know. You are simply proving the point about why people shouldn't rely upon an internet search. Somehow, you apparently think that just because you googled it, that you magically know what you are talking about.

First of all, your credibility in judging the accuracy of of this document is, of course, precisely zero.

Second, suppose I tell you there is no copy of "War and Peace" in the library. You take me through a little tour, down some dusty shelves, and point out a copy. My response is, then , "Read it and summarize it for me"? 

Seriously? I am not reading the random stuff you and Musacha keep saying isnt on the internet. I am simply pointing out that it is on the internet. I will leave it to intererested parties to go read. What impudence makes you think I am going to go off and suddenly have an interest in your pet topic? How about you summarize "A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960" for me?

I have proven you clowns wrong over and over. All you can do is say "Now summarize" as opposed to "Oh, I guess I was wrong, you can find it on the net".

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure I wrote a book on the subject, which was peer reviewed by several historians. Breakout and Pursuit is flawed, and one of the reasons why is that it doesn't provide an accurate or detailed discussion of the battle of Mons. I know what I'm talking about; but you (as you well know) do not.

Since Breakout and Pursuit is the most detailed account you will find on the internet, I think it's pretty clear that google will not be of much assistance if you wish to know something about Mons... which is why I wrote a book on the subject.

It's really absurd that you think most of the world's information is available on the internet. Yes, you can do a quick google search and come up with some facts, but you'd learn a lot more at the library.

And I assume if I ask the author of Breakout and Pursuit, he will agree with you that your version is accurate and his is not? 

Or perhaps not. Perhaps you are in error, there as here, and just like here unwilling to admit your mistake?

Based on my knopwldege of you, I am going to go way way out on a limb ( ) and assume his account is just the tiniest more accurate.

He passed away nearly ten years ago... are you noticing how little you know about this subject? Do you honestly think historians haven't learned anything about WWII beyond what was written decades ago?

I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Just a couple of posts back I told you I had no interest in the topic, I was just pointing out source materials are available, to people who are interested, of whom I cannot count myself among their number. I do have an interest in WWII but only in the wider sweep of the war.

Have you finished up that summary of "A Monetary History of the United Stated 1867-1960"  for me yet?

Then STFU.

Well, I havent learned anything from you yet. But you did learn something from me...never claim "You can't find X on the internet", until you first go and actually try to find it.

You didn't find X on the internet. You found a link to something you haven't read. Good job. You are now an 'expert'.

Do you sound ridiculous even to yourself at this point?

Where is my summary of "A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960", I have asked for it for like 5 posts now. Whats the matter, you arent an expert?

Well, here, if you dont have time to read it and summarize, this is the next best thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Monetary_History_of_the_United_States

Now, it doesnt make you an expert. However, you now know a little bit more than you did 5 minutes ago. Thats something. Plus, if you click on all the sub links and follow those, you will know quite a bit more than you did. 

You really are dense... nobody said that you can't find stuff on the internet.

That was smart to partially disagree with your sockpuppets.

Alas, most posters here remember the storm before erik's change of rules, with Katia, Mike_Schwartzen (or something) et al.

Untracking this.

There you go again with these unfounded accusations.  If you are so myopic that you cannot possibly even fathom two actual people disagreeing with you on any topic, that's your problem.

Rinkleff has been a member here since 2008.  Not that such facts matter much to anyone as simple minded as Irontiger.  "Oh, there's someone else disagreeing with me, he cannot possibly be a real life person...I mean, WHO could possibly disagree with ME?  I'm always right you know!  That MUST be a *gasp* SOCKPUPPET!"

I've seen this from him repeatedly (among others).

@Ubik, contrary to popular perception, written "history" is always changing and growing, much in the manner of hard science.  (I'm not saying history is a hard science, I'm just saying that the current state of historical research changes and evolves like theories in hard science).

New historical facts and evidence are discovered all the time.  New historians write new theories of why things happened as they did. Sometimes the new evidence and facts lend themselves to a total change in the accepted historical theories of a given era.  

Therefore, it is not unlikely that a source on the Battle of Mons (1944) written over a decade ago may not be considered accurate today.  

Furthermore, you never "proved" me wrong about any sources either.  I was asking about the effect any lingering Celtic-Briton peoples may have had on the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, not "can you find me a wikipedia article on pre-conquest England please?" or "Can you please find me the most poorly written and pretentious account of Anglo-Saxon England written by the Society for the Advocacy of the Good Lord's Name -- Northampton, England"?