No, indeed it is not your problem that I have limited time on the internet.
But it is not going to be a problem to me either because I can sustain the same argument with which I began in this thread, no matter how many pages of horrific Muslim deeds you may reproduce from Mr. Winn's site.
Why?
Because I did not go into this thread basing my argument on the premise that Muslims are all very nice fellows.
In fact the only reason I even went off on this tangent with you is that I couldn't believe you were actually arguing that ALL Muslims are like that.
But you were. And obviously you will continue to believe it until someone comes here who has enough time to disabuse you of your erroneous notions one by one.
If I run across a book of things which did NOT happen between 622 and 1000 AD, I'll be sure and do that.
Disclosing your source would not have contravened my doing that in any way at all, had I the time and the motivation to do it.
After all, it is not as though the source of your timeline included any footnotes.
In fact, every reference he made was to a different section of his own publication.
In that sense, his work is very much like a window opening out onto an abyss.
I am quite sure there are conflicting accounts of the history. But my objection lo these several days has not been about inaccuracies; my objection has been that you would not reveal your source and I knew from the style that it had been written by someone other than yourself.
I realize I have the choice either to spend the equivalent of whole days in fact-checking his timeline, or else
I can just carry on as though it were all true, with the reservations previously noted concerning the three contrary opinions.
I am choosing that second option.
