Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.
I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).
Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.
Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.
