marlinguy wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 7:24pm:


Only someone with seriously impaired faculties for logical reasoning could arrive at such an idiotically absurd distortion of my criticism, in which ANY reputable historian would unquestionably concur!  The universal & invariable RULE of reputable historiography is "identify the source" of whatever facts are being asserted--which is usually EASY to do in a few words, merely by inserting a phrase like "according to...," reported in...", or the like.  It's accepted that Popes may speak ex cathedra, but not historical researchers.  Your ignorance of this fundamental principal of historical research should speak for itself, except among other ignoramuses sharing the idea that, "what's commonly believed MUST be factual, or why would so many believe it?"  What's commonly believed may very well be factual, but without knowledge of the original sources for that belief, how can it's validity possibly be tested?  

But for setting up straw-men, your talent is exceptional.

 

Redsetter wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 8:17pm:

Since you're able to speak on matters of faith, is it okay to have faith in Water's work. Or, is it a half decent idea to cross check it with other published data? Straw-men aside, doesn't it seem like absolutes drift back and forth with the wind?

craigd wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:


I previously SAID that I did:  Redsetter wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 3:30pm:


So would it be asking TOO much to request that you base your statements on what I actually said? Making-up false assertions to attribute to me is Marlinguy's specialty! 


I'd also appreciate your referring me to the post in which I claimed to be able to speak on matters of faith.    

So the fact that Grant was alive at the time of these happenings isn't good enough for you. You still amaze me. 
Go ahead and make yourself the expert on everything gun related, and expect whatever you post to be believed because you saw it in a catalog or in some old gun magazine. You constantly mention both sources to legitimize things you've posted, and yet in your explanation we shouldn't rely on written sources unless there's another back up document.
Funny how you use the same argument to deny things, and support things.

No catalogs are not always good resources. Surprised again that you hold such high regard in catalogs, as there are numerous cases where catalogs have proven to show models or features that were dropped after catalogs were printed, so the info in them can be incorrect. They certainly aren't the end all for information.

That's the stupidest example I've ever seen used. Yes, plenty of folks were around for the Kennedy assassination, but I doubt that means anyone truly knows how it went down to 100% accuracy. 
But since it was seen by so many I'd guess you'd argue Kennedy might not be dead, wasn't shot in Dallas, or we aren't sure it was really JFK in the car. After all it's only hear say according to your way of seeing things.

marlinguy wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 11:23am:


Yet again, your standard tactic of putting words into my mouth I NEVER said!  "The end all for information"?  Who said that?  Certainly not me!  I said:   

Redsetter wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 10:38am:

Redsetter wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 11:56am:


Show me where I said you said catalogs were "the end all"? More BS by you, and attempts to twist my words. But you have on numerous occasions used old catalogs as "proof" that something was done. When in fact old catalogs are not 100% proof of anything without other evidence, as you've pointed out on numerous occasions. The only time they're 100% is when you provide that info.

Redsetter wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 11:01pm:

It ain't no big deal Redsetter, but no it's not too much for you to ask me to base my statements on what you actually said. Did I ever get bent out of shape for you putting words in my mouth such as suspecting 'Ken was making it up'? Waters articles or Roberts/Donaldson personality hiccups aren't the point, only the changing standards of 'historical research'.

If you look at your answer here, it has the look to me like you don't seem to hold to your lectures about historical research and rigid methods, which relates directly to my faith comment. It seems if you have faith in something, it's good enough, but I quoted my perception of you referencing faith in a disingenuous way to belittle the way some folks interpret what they read.

If you actually read my comments instead of assigning motives, all they come down to is me being thankful that writings were published, even if the vetting wasn't strictly by some guideline.

There are many examples of reference books that are the result of meticulous research. Some authors are much better than others, and there are some publish addendums and other corrections in subsequent book form. I think it shouldn't be forgotten that the audience for these subjects is so limited, that these books come up because of authors' passion and not for the money.

It's okay in my mind for a reader to question and have the passion to seek correction, but the reader has the luxury of minimal investment. Would it have been better to not have the book in the first place? I bet if the authors of the past had digitized archives to search, their books would've turned out different, but just a little. So many of the writings are the only record remaining for a particular topic or event, and as I've mentioned maybe they can be appreciated as better than nothing, because no one has the passion to publish corrections and sources are long gone.