(November 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: But you haven't been demonstrating that; merely asserting it. I and others here have been leadiing you by the hand, step by step
Since when does the blind lead a person with 20/20 vision?
(November 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: through the reasons why your evidence isn't actually evidence for what you're claiming it is. Clearly it's not all that compelling, or there'd be more historians who would accept it
Dude, please. First off, if by "more", you mean the minority that don't believe? Well, there is still the majority that do believe. Apparently it is that compelling to that majority...so where you get this "or there'd be mroe historians who accept it" shit...I don't know. But apparently you don't know the facts....so it would help if you actually knew what you were talking about...like where does the community within the field of history stand...and the majority are on my side.
(November 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm not a historian
Noooo?
(November 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: but I am a reasonable man. I'll accept a good reason. I'll accept a bad reason. I'll accept any damn reason at all, only at least meet me halfway and give me something to get my teeth into.
I can do that...I just would like to talk on a different platform..an IM platform, where we can really get to the issue.
I predict you will reject the offer, though
