We can't go there James. That's a double negative.
If you want to dismiss someone for not having so-called evidence, then you need to provide that evidence yourself. We don't get to dismiss somebody for lack of evidence without providing any evidence ourselves that directly proves that the source being dismissed was derelict in their documentation.
AAHL debunking myths and folklore or even popular narrative? Yes, of course! That is one of our prime objectives. And we do it through documentation, not dismissal.
And then we have this next point:
?
Sometimes, James, things ARE folklore. The way I read Arthur's work, by not providing a source he's basically challenging us to go find one because he couldn't.
Arthur's body of work is of such high regard that I wouldn't believe for a minute that he was deliberately being slothful and not providing a source-- if he had one to provide. It appears to me that, instead, and in true classic AAHL fashion, he is reporting what he has found to be the narrative and by not giving the source... he's basically saying there isn't one.
?
So rather than dismiss him, how about those among us who wish to challenge this document look for some sources to challenge it with?
?
I have no plans to approve any more replies to this topic unless they truly shed some documented light on it. Any more commentary on the person behind the topic needs to bring more to the table than just an opinion.
?
Because like everything else in the world, sometimes we have to take what we like and leave the rest.
?
-Thom R.
AAHL Moderator
Thom R.