He did that a couple of years ago.
That he actually imagines history has been falsified by the French to successfully conceal from the world that they actually declared war on Germany first pretty much sums up his knowledge on not just history, but any topic. Seriously, France doctored the documents of who declared war first, and mindwiped every single living person at the time so that they wouldn’t remember it?
The Eiffel Tower is actually a gigantic Neuralyzer. 
You forget, the day before Germany mobilized and declared war on France or Russia, they mobilized and declared.
Both authors put a stake through the heart of a common narrative that has Germany mobilizing first so as to spring the preventive war its generals had long advocated. It didn’t. Clark documents how Berlin’s political and military leaders stuck to their blithe belief that any conflict could be localized. Russia’s mobilization, he says, was “one of the most momentous decisions of the July crisis. This was the first of the general mobilizations.” McMeekin says that Russia’s crime was first in escalating a local quarrel by encouraging Serbia to stand up to Austria-Hungary and then accelerating the rush to war. He faults Barbara Tuchman in her classic “Guns of August” for misdating Russia’s mobilization two days later than it was ordered. He is no apologist for Germany. …Clark lends authority by citing Russian-French falsifications of documents. The Russians backdated and reworded papers in the records. The French were even more inventive, fabricating a telegram reporting six days of war preparations by Germany that weren’t happening. In Clark’s phrase, both Russia and France were at pains, then and later, to make Berlin appear “the moral fulcrum of the crisis.”…McMeekin is intent on indicting the men and nations he considers guilty. He could have entitled his book “J’accuse.” It’s his third with a polemical thrust. Clark declines to join McMeekin in what he calls “the blame game,” because there were so many participants. He argues that trying to fix guilt on one leader or nation assumes that there must be a guilty party and this, he maintains, distorts the history into a prosecutorial narrative that misses the essentially multilateral nature of the exchanges, while underplaying the ethnic and nationalistic ferment of a region.
Yes. Read that cite. Read the books. Two authors.
Maybe you are right. Yeah, Steward deserved Pitting. I am not that sorry for my first post in the Politics forum, but I was totally utterly wrong to repeat it, and I richly deserved my warning. I get angry when I fell someone has done and act of betrayal.
Look “enuf” is my way of spelling enough- everywhere in social /casual settings. FB, other groups, everywhere in a casual setting. I will try not to do that here- BUT I do not do it to piss people off. Oh, and this is the only place anyone has complained about it. Except one dude who made a joke about it- once.
Hijacks are my kryptonite, I admit. But I am trying not to start them now, it just that when one gets going “Must…reply…to…Hijack”. I will get some lead underwear.
I’m not. He’s a net negative for the board. At this point, I mostly just ignore him, because he detracts more than he contributes. I don’t have him on ignore, but I scroll past his bullshit. He adds nothing but noise. I wish others would just scroll past because his irritating habits provoke more disruptive noise in response. I look forward to his departure and otherwise I don’t much bother pitting him or engaging with the conflicts he provokes. It’s not worth the energy.
My mistake. I left out a word. I meant I was happy he joined in here. I meant this Pit thread. I am glad he decided to actually read and address the issues people have with his posting.
Fair enough.
Since DrDeth is responding here, I think I’ll let it coast for a while longer.
I don’t want to belabor this point because not everyone finds his spelling habits annoying and in any case it’s the least of his problems, but since you asked, yes, you have that right, and you’re also right about it being a deliberate attempt to annoy. I admit that I’m probably more annoyed than most by this kind of affectation, but I’m definitely not the only one. In the case of refusing to use “an” instead of “a”, I think his argument was that it’s only relevant in spoken language. Which is his usual gibberish. That’s not how written language works.
I’ll make a further point. In a recent post, perhaps trying to correct his annoying proclivities, he wrote about “an unanimous decision”. This is wrong, because that’s not how the rule works, but my point is that although it’s wrong it’s not annoying. It’s just a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes.
I also have no problem with posters writing “kinda”, “I’m gonna”, and so on. I do it myself. It’s just common internet slang. Anyone objecting to it would be a pretentious jerk. What I object to is the obviously deliberate attempt to poke and prod and annoy people with idiosyncratic affectations, like the dearly departed “Regards, Shodan”, and it’s just part of a pattern of jerkish behaviour that I hope he corrects.
I agree that it’s “a” unanimous decision. On the other hand, it’s “an” undulating line, isn’t it?
I’m not a native English speaker, I can tell which is right and which isn’t but I’m not sure I could explain why.
Eta: is it because of the You- sound in Unanimous vs the Ahn sound in Undulating?
Yes.
The point is to make it easier to say…
“A you” rolls off the tongue easier than “an you”
“An un” rolls off the tongue easier than “a un”.
Simples ! 
Because of the hodge-podge of languages that actually make up English, some of our letters come to us in different ways.
In the case of the letter ‘u’, it is the general rule (with the admission that rules of grammar often have exceptions and our vowels each have more than 2 sounds) that you use the article ‘a’ when using the long vowel ‘u’ sound and the article ‘an’ when using the short vowel ‘u’ sound
E.g. ‘a’ united front, vs ‘an’ undeclared front
To add to the fun, sometimes the “n” shifts from the word to the article, or the other way around. Newt was Ewt, and adder was nadder - but an ewt became a newt and a nadder became an adder.
Ah, long and short vowels. That’s the term I was missing.
Intentional grammatical errors and misspellings are a perfect, low-key technique for troling Dopers. I’m not saying that DD is doing so, but ya gotta admit, it’s easy pickings
In the Alabama & education thread we can already see things going downhill. He complained about the use of an acronym not making sense despite immediately following the phrase it was abbreviating. So I jokingly put
His reply?
Dude, take responsibility for your own dumbassery.
And his take on CRT?
In other words, “I have no clue what it is either, but I’ll talk about it like I do.”
And then later on he makes ridiculous statements about “white guilt” and when there is push back, he gets one last “I’m right” in with a wikipedia article that doesn’t prove him right, then tells us it’s a hijack so he’s dropping it.
To get technical about it, generally English prosody is hostile to what is variously called “hiatus” or “diaeresis” (consecutive vowel sounds). It’s sometimes avoided by inserting a glottal stop (think of sometime saying “uh-oh”), but is usually dealt with by inserting either an intervening consonant, or a glide (a semi-consonant sound like the beginning of “you”). So it’s “an undulating line” because “undulating” doesn’t have a glide, but “a universe” because “universe does”.
That’s also why, in most dialects, “the” ends with a schwa before consonants, but is pronounced like “thee” before vowel sounds; the “ee” sound is easy to append a “y” glide to. So “the undulating line” really comes out “thee yundulating line”.
I feel like English doesn’t like consequtive consonants either. Or at least, when English speakers try to say Hebrew words, they often stick a bunch of extra vowels in.
To use the first example that comes to mind, מדבר (meaning Speak) is promounced meh-da-ber. But English speakers almost always pronounce it may-die-bear. That hard Da straight into a hard Br is somehow impossible.
May name had a very short transition between two consonants, and I’ve had to get used to a vowel being shoved in there by everyone in the US.
Some of that may be general lack of comfort with other languages, but certainly consecutive plosives tend to get elided. If I were to say “bad break” conversationally, I wouldn’t really finish the “d”. If I were to emphasize the “d”, either for a demonstration of elocution or for lyric diction (in singing), it would be more “bad-ih break”. That’s called a shadow vowel, and its precise manifestation is somewhat dialect dependant.
In the commentary track to “The Princess Bride” Goldman notes that he made life hard for the actor playing Humperdink with this line:
“I shall marry a lady who was once a commoner like yourselves. (Pause) but perhaps you will not find her common now.” The “common now” is difficult to say without blurring the words together.