Almost every mention of the book in this thread has been by you.
I discussed several works at the beginning. Since the time the author of
Haunted by Neil Armstrong came into this thread to shill it, you've spoken of no other work. That's after you asked for a reading list and evaded further questions which other works from it you'd investigated.
You even went out of your way to find the guys website...
No, I didn't go out my way. It's printed on the back cover of the book you've been reading for a week.
...and publicise it. Which you continue to do by posting the link on your own website.
That is my standard editorial policy. If you had read any of the other reviews on the site, you'll see I always tell the reader where he can access the original material. That's to allow someone to see whether I have selectively quoted it. My argument at the web site is never based on keeping my readers from reading material I disagree with.
I made one post stating that I liked the book and why. Everything else has been in reply to people attacking that view or myself personally.
No. Nearly every post has been you whining incessantly about how badly you're being treated at a forum you keep returning to, even when it's abundantly clear you have no interest in its stated purpose.
If you don't like the subject matter, go away. If you're just here to keep stirring mud, go away.
Have you seen a post by myself where I say I have changed my mind or contradicted my original claim? No. So why would you need to even ask that question?
Because you made your original claim "...it's impossible to really know if it's true or not," only once in your very first post back from reading it. Then you spoke of it no more until now, refused to answer questions regarding it, and refused to discuss it with anyone who disagreed with it.
I'd seriously like to know why I'd need to re-affirm a previous statement when it's clear I've not switched positions.
Because it is not at all clear you haven't switched positions. You switched your argument almost immediately to not
caring whether the book was factual. And you raised that point over and over for pages, and ignored repeated requests for you to clarify whether or not you were indeed softening your position.
Nearly 10 pages of people trying to engage you on that "it's impossible" point, not the irrelevant indifference you kept substitute.
Now that you've finally affirmed that you believe it's impossible to determine whether the book is factual, do you have any interest in discussing that claim?
