Like I said earlier, I'm a little sad this has happened the way it has. I'd been working on an idea like this, but hopefully starting with a reasonably clinical synthesis/summary. The Spancil Hill thread is becoming an illustration of what happens if you don't.

It also shows another Mudcat tendency, that of trying to "diss" information which is honestly provided in order to test statements made here. It seems we're only ever happy with confirmatory evidence. My training shows this is worthless; a correct picture can only be built up by trying to "break" a hypothetical position.

I shouldn't have been surprised, I suppose ... the one time I tried a serious discursive thread (about F. J. Child) most of what I got (except for Malcolm's contributions, which were uniformly polite and well-informed) was abuse for being nasty to their favourite hero. This is despite the fact that few of the contributors had any idea of what Professor Child had or had not done.

BTW Kevin ... you twigged what I was trying to do on that thread, but it was to little avail. (I'm not GUEST)

Oh well ... Best regards
Ian