Well you might as well be telling me that I can't comment on Liverpool matches because I haven't actually played for the first team. Absurd.

You will not find me commenting, ever, on the quality of historical sources. Why not? Because I don't read any, that's why. I don't step beyond the bounds of my very limited knowledge. Prove that I do, if you dare. But you appear to have this problem, thinking that I'm not able to extrapolate from my scientific background, which requires a good deal of automatic scepticism about everything I'm told, to any other topic. Well, I assure you that my grounding is quite sound. Unlike science, and unfortunately for those history buffs who would like to claim exclusivity, there is nothing technical about reading history. A non-specialist is perfectly capable of reading even the most testing historical tome with little difficulty, given a sufficient degree of curiosity and desire for background knowledge. So please don't come the "how many history books have you actually read, Steve?" bullshit. Irrelevant. If I glean that you don't agree, be very wary of ever saying anything about science at all. I just might be on your case, and you won't have a leg to stand on.