Craig I'm going to talk about your post so bare with me.

The problem I have with 'historians', especially the PHDs and Masters, their view of history follows a certain formula, much like math, very much like paleontology. That any challenge to the accepted formula is heresy to the 'science' of history. Especially if those challenges come from a layperson.

Craig, you have challenged other's postings without giving the poster the hint of a benefit of the doubt. Your type of history is history with blinders on, going down the old beaten path of dogma we have been given for years. Because the subject was not posted by legitimate 'historian' it cannot be given any merit by you. What I hate is lazy 'historians' that acccept only the work of other lazy 'historians', in a never ending regurgitation of bland and uninspiring information.

I have never felt history was an 'advanced field of study'. It is a technical field when collecting and cataloging information, but to teach and disseminate history is only specialized by how the words are formulated and how to tell the story. I love history and have all my life, but it comes very easy to me, and I would guess to many on this board.

I have been misidentified as a 'historian' many times but I always correct that mistake by saying I am a 'researcher', and I'm proud of my work. A historians do not impress me, good work does.

_______________________
David Upton