So, after all this time, Mr. FO has come up with precisely zero proof of his assertion. I can't tell you how surprised I am.


But still, this is it for me on this thread.    Despite the groundswell of popular opinion clamoring for the scintillating conversation between Mr FO and me to go on for several thousands more posts, I've found I do have something better to do with my time--like just about anything else.

It certainly has been a long strange trip--but enlightening in some ways.    Mr. FO neatly encapsulated his own problem--and the reason he's not likely to become reasonable any time soon--in his statement:   "history is pretty much how the preponderance of evidence comes down".

Hey, groovy, man.    Like, what's goin' down?

That explains his sloppy writing--and sloppy thinking.

History as "majority rules". A unique perspective--but one which fits an ideological warrior like his good self to a T.

Only problem is that it's pure drivel.

History is not "the preponderance of evidence".   That's not history--that's a theory. Once more with feeling:   there is a difference between a theory and a fact. And some questions are never answered.   Nor does a real historian, as opposed to a polemicist, try to squeeze the evidence into his straitjacket--while conveniently ignoring anything which does not fit the theory--and therefore announce his theory as a fact.

A historian will call a theory a theory, a probability by its name, and distinguish between these and a fact. And sometimes facts are hard to come by. That's just the way it is.

But I can't spend any more time on this thread. So Mr. FO wins--he gets the last word. Feel free, Mr. FO, to jump around again yelling "I won, I won".    Congratulations to you. Give yourself another big gold star.