I knew you'd be along to "correct" me. I'm not prepared to alter what I've said though.
No mate, YOU TRIED TO CORRECT ME, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Your post was in response to mine.
I have knowledge that I've worked hard to acquire; I've examined the evidence coming from all quarters, have first hand practical experience, and have made up my own mind.
You Googled it.
So you are a fully qualified historian? We all have a thing called a brain and can look at the evidence presented and decide which side we think is right. That is not the same as being right.
The usual 'you googled it' claim. If the google or yahoo stuff is right and you're wrong then there is no issue. I only used yahoo AFTER you contradicted me. Then again, you have never presented any real evidence of anything. If you do find some then I and everyone else will listen.
This is why I will not be engaging you in any further discussion on the subject.
Wow, and putting your head in a hole like a proverbial ostrich makes you right? I say proverbial because no real ostrich has ever been pictured like that. Perhaps you should do some real research or leave it to the experts.
Note that while I said the use of the V sign was well documented and not a myth there are a couple of issues with that. The V sign as we know it today came from much later. The actual claim made at the time was that Henry V said that the fingers would be removed, not that it had. The action might have been 'waved the two fingers at the French' and shouts to 'come and get them'. A more likely outcome of the French capturing an English archer would have been a quick death than the removal of two fingers. The reliability of the documentation is therefore debatable. The reality of this is that it can now never be proven either way.