The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.
Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.
I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.
As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.
Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.
