If you have something specific that the author has gotten wrong, perhaps you should state what it is. You write: > Yet another article about Fuller that categ

If you have something specific that the author has gotten wrong, perhaps you should state what it is. You write: > Yet another article about Fuller that categorically dismisses his ideas and historical importance based on a few shallow misunderstandings that likely came from reading other shallow summaries rather than actually reading his work. It's hardly shallow. Nevala-Lee's book is well-sourced, and the author worked closely with the BFI. The error seems to have been that past writers' MO was to uncritically take Fuller's claims (even the mutually contradictory ones—of which the book documents many) at face value. The best evidence of shallow reading and speculative guesswork connected to this article, ironically, is the one I quoted above...