Byron Angel wrote: ↑
Wed May 29, 2019 3:56 pm
So far, of course, my simple question still awaits a cogent response.
as an opinion , as uninformed as it might seem or be, my suggestion is to try to create a less aggravating dialogue, with less explicit demands.
I know that the solidity of a house rests on the solidity of it's foundation, BUT , in history, in general, there is always wiggle room and space for the unforeseen/unknown at the time of the writting. See what British contemporary (1941) accounts write about the Bismarck, and compare it to her actual characteristics, and you'll find alot of different data sets. Along the axis of time, other accounts, or books, appeared, concerning the battleship Bismarck, all of which are hard to consider, today, as being definitive (see von Mullencheim's account...). History changes with passing time, as more documents come to light...
If it helps in any way, my opinion is that a more general (but not too
general) approach would work better, and at the very least move the type of debate from "why do you say that/ you don't know anything / show me proof of..." to a more collegial "what is your summary of the events that happened during timeframe.... to .... " / "what sequence of events best matches this phenomenon" / "what are the boundaries of the phenomenons that we are debating".
Every participant could bring his / her own version of the events, write it down, and publish it here. Finer details could and should be discussed in private, until more competent knowledge/ broader opinions are necessary.
My point of view...