I won't address the article's historical claims for the same reason I won't address the Bible's historical claims: - Addressing those historical claims would b

I won't address the article's historical claims for the same reason I won't address the Bible's historical claims: - Addressing those historical claims would be an implicit acknowledgement of their relevance, but I believe they aren't. - It would take a massive effort of research on my part to verify the historical accuracy of the claims, and this effort would be pretty aggravating for me since as I stated the claims are not relevant whether true or false. Also, it's disproportionally easier to make a new (BS) historical claim than to definitely disprove it so it's a losing battle. And let's see... First August Dvorak claimed his layout is better, then there was the Fable of the keys, which said it wasn't, then there was the Fable of the Fable which contradicted that... And I'm sure there's a Fable of the Fable of the Fable lurking somewhere. So if you believe this historical BS is important, help yourself.