How convenient that historians that exhibit behavior that proves my point are not real historians but the ones that exhibit behavior that prove your point quali

How convenient that historians that exhibit behavior that proves my point are not real historians but the ones that exhibit behavior that prove your point qualify. You seem to believe that professional historians are only so if they support your viewpoint. With that kind of logic how could you possibly be wrong? I didn't realize that we were operating under your magical ability to purity test historians. Of course it'd be the case that the likes of EP Thompson and Niall Ferguson or Will Durant are passable even with their wildly biased interpretations of history, but dinesh d'souza or david irving are clearly not professionals because, you said so.