Jenos Ridan wrote:Firstly: I made no claims about being an expert. Not that you care.
Second: I never said Quebec was not culturally French. Again, it hurts your case if you conceded to the truth here. Already hurts your case with you distorting my words and waving them about like a banner. And again, as if you care.
Third: Where you get these numbers are a mystery you have never explained. Perhaps, that you, would hurt your case.
Fourth: If I am no expert, even less of one are you. But, as is predictable, you are too dense to notice or care.
Fifth: Where a teenager finds the nerve to act like a whinny brat and call a grown man 'immature' is a most annoying enigma. That is, until I remember that you are not arguing in a very adult manner.
In conclusion: Take your uninformed, nationalist, school-boy propaganda-ridden ravings and shut up. The fact is, in spite of being a French citizen, you know nothing yet. When you are in college, then we can talk like civilized men. But until then, Stow It! Quite frankly, I grew tired of your act a long while back and I will not have anymore of it.
Look, I don't want to be nasty, but the simple truth here is that I am more intelligent ad better read than you. I'm not insulting you, simply stating the facts. You can try and delude yourself by claiming I'm a "schoolboy propagandist" (not that the phrase makes any particular sense in any context), but the simple fact is, you're unable to debate.
Let me take you through some steps here:
1/You have to make a claim and stick to it.
2/You have to provide evidence for your answer, not by spilling out facts as if to try and impress people with your knowledge of dates (as it happens, you look slightly ridiculous, because what you think makes you some kind of intellectual colossus in fact is fairly basic stuff for me as a Frenchman or Ignotus as a historian), but rather by thinking in an analytical or critical way.
3/You can use ad hominem, but make sure you use it in the context of actual evidence. I've insulted you, but you'll notice I do it with a nuance: whilst I'm actually arguing, you're just rather crassly flaming (and are basically relying on my age as a point of derision: a sign of insecurity, and your constant allusions to me being younger than you, a "griwn man", make me think you have things you want to be compensating for). Psychoanalysis aside: make sure you use actual arguments, not simple factual regurgitation.
4/Structure: this is very important, especially if you decide, later in life, you actually want to write something passable. You need to provide logical steps in your thinking: "I just read x date on wikipedia ergo I can make wild unsubstantiated claims about unrelated historical events [hoping me or someone like Ignotus won't pick upon it and give your arse a good caning]" is not a validline of reasoning.
5/My stats come from estimates by Historian J. Julaud. He wrote a number of my school textbooks from when I was younger, some of the French equivalent of "for dummies" books on French poetry, and a book on France for foreigners (which I recommend to you). The specific book I refer to is "
Les Grandes Dates de L'Histoire de France".
6/Make sure you have references handy. Do you have any form historians claiming Alsace-Lorraine should be German (if you're still entertaining that ridiculous notion)?
Bravo to another 
