Anti-Wellington feeling in Napoleonic discussions

[RPW@Cy]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

Sorry? Cold hard opinions? Shouldn't that be fact?

No, I don't think so. Having read the other thread in question, "opinions" is the right word. He's certainly deployed few if any facts in support of his suppositions and basically called somebody who did produce facts to contradict him a liar. So yes, opinions.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by RPW@Cy

No, I don't think so. Having read the other thread in question, "opinions" is the right word. He's certainly deployed few if any facts in support of his suppositions and basically called somebody who did produce facts to contradict him a liar. So yes, opinions.

Mike was responding to 67th Tigers, who has a track record of misinterpreting sources. In this case, 67th claims that no units that served in the Peninsula fought at Lundy's Lane, which does not refute Mike's claim that officers who served in the Peninsula fought at Lundy's Lane. Neither offers the slightest proof to back their claims.

Mike claims the American troops under Scott found hard and were significantly better trained than previously. 67th counters by claiming Scott did not perform well as a commander at Lundy's Lane, which again does not refute Mike's claim. Unlike Mike, 67th does at least link to a book that he claims supports his view, though 67th does not actually quote the book or link to a specific passage that supports 67th's view.

The rest of 67th's statements, like those of Mike, are backed by nothing.