The majority of stand watie's pronouncements that people are haters are made in response to people who ask him to provide evidence to back up his accusations. Do you think someone is a hater if they believe historical accounts should be based on evidence?
I have read with great interest your posts on this thread. I have read venomous attacks and plenty of insults and childish name calling. I have also noticed a heavy bias on your part but that's understandable on threads like these. But the insults do not belong. Calling someone an "old coot" is engaging in a discussion or debate? Usually the insults are the last line of defense of the losers of arguments.
I believe someone is a hater based upon the words they speak and in the context they speak them. I believe someone can make a point without insulting names being thrown about. I also believe that a vast majority of "facts" in these arguments come from the fact that the winner writes the history. That has happened from the beginning of time. But just because the winner writes the "facts" does not make them fact.
I'm sure that the North Koreans believe the "facts" that are told to them by their dear leader too. But does that make them facts? I prefer to do my own research beyond history textbooks and what others tell me. I am not one to eat the spoon fed information that I am given. I can only hope you are the same.