(August 19, 2015 at 5:26 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm also discussing and hoping to learn. You seem to want me to just accept what the majority say and leave it at that.
No, I wanted you to focus on what I was saying exactly. Your strategy, it seems, in this exchange with me in this thread was to ignore my actual argument and move on to other tangential points that I don't care much to address (such as hearsay unreliability or your checklist). I told you it isn't about accepting hearsay or just believing whatever you read, it's plausibility, but you didn't consider that at all. So yes, I'm accusing you of ignoring what I said and strawmanning as well.
Historians aren't so stupid that they believe everything they read. If that's what you got from what has been said in this thread, then you didn't get much. So, sorry, but I don't feel bad that we're not furthering this conversation.
