Simon,
Disagreements are part of this type of research, we all have them. It's unfortunate when they overwhelm a thread and I think we can all understand why Richmond feels caught in the middle.
Clearly Jonathan realises that and to his credit has appologised to Ricmond.
You should do the same.
When you decided to take this to a separate thread you could (and
should) have handled it very differently.
If you wanted to just scan some pages from this 'fabled book', highlight some quotes and draw conclusions that would have been fine and we could have all discussed the evidence as shown. But you continued the personal nature of the disagreement with Jonathan right from the start and to be frank you undermine the credibility or your position when you imply that Berkley's disagreeing with your interptretation was in some way indicative of personal bias and reflected on
www.ikrhs.com 'The International Kukri Research and Historical Society' or Jonathan's position as a senior researcher within it.
IKRHS is a 'Mecca' for serious Kukri collectors and whatever points of symantics etc that you may disagree with them about, Berkley and Jonathan's honour and dedication to the serious study of the subject is completely beyond reproach or question.
It was clear to me (in the other thread) that when that sort of fuel was being added to the flame the thread was only going to end one way and I completely agree with Ricks warning and Davids decision to lock it.
As a novice Kukri collector and Brit' I have some experience of Kukri so have my own opinion based on my experience, but as Richmond rightly says, the minutiae of this question rapidly becomes to esoteric for me, so I'd suggest that you correlate your evidence and present it calmly and imperonally on IKRHS where it can be discussed by those whose speciality is Kukri and those who used them.
I'll even happily join in and add my thoughts there, not here. Lets take this out of the oven now and leave it to cool before it gets any more burnt
Best
Gene