But the number of times we have been in threads which were shot down for being speculation with no historical evidence (like the Cathars one - sorry foolish, but...) and there is apparently no place for that kind of discussion anywhere. That is SUCH a shame. In a climate like that, Galileo would never have been able to discuss the solar system until he was almost dead.... (oops, that WAS what happened to him - but you know what I mean ! Many of the greatest discoveries ever started with no demonstrable evidence, just a theory and a gut feeling - and it seems we cannot do that here, anywhere
.)
...
... well, there are a few points.
a. Foolish is by far not comparable to Galileo.
b. The decision to stop this thread was due to the wisdom of earlier moderators.
c. Indeed I think, that I personally worked inside this thread more about Cathars then Foolish.
d. Indeed Foolish very seldom talked about Cathars there. He also doesn't tell much in his book (just my opinion).
e. Foolish is very strong in the presentation of communicative contexts, which are NOT the theme in Historical Research usually.
f. Actually I would suggest, that in Historical Research 90% is about facts of researched objects, and maybe 10% should be communicative aspects, which naturally may be and shall be and are good to keep the soul intact.
g. I think, Foolish easily turns the relations to 10% about the facts and to 90% for communicative aspects.
h. Human character is different, that is so and isn't the debate. But ... imagine, you build a house and you've 10 men and 9 of the 10 men are discussing all the day, what has to be done, and one single man does all the work. This house isn't build very quick, naturally.
i. In the Historical Research we've found ways to cooperate with each other and help us with our interests. This works and this is very practical. The result is, that a lot of persons profit from it and a lot of persons become very competent in the theme.
And this has meaning far outside of this Forum, as it is just simply qualitative good work, and it is that, what has to be done to improve the theme.
j. These 90%-full-of-words characters don't fit well in the scheme. If they additionally have a "marketing idea with an own written book in the background" with rather obscure hypotheses, this also complicates matters. In other words: Foolish doesn't fit well.
There are other Forums here with much more communicative aspects.
k. Well, everybody can change and everybody can learn. For the moment I don't see, that Foolish has changed very much.
Just a lot of words around nothing of real relevance. Just a BIG EGO with no real object. For the moment he has reached, that this Frege thread talks about his problems ... and that's actually not the point here.
Well, just for the communicative 10% ... I never asked you, but what's your interest in Historical Research ?