>I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th cen

>I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th century history, his claims of Ferguson's ignorance and claims and over-simplification of the same and his outright personal attack at the end and I was not impressed with either his critique or his methods. Rather than attacking the person (or even his sources), why not address the actual fallacies in his historical analogies? What is good for a political talk show blowhard seeking ratings is not the same as what is good for a constructive discussion.