I should in fairness have used 'us' in both those sentences, rather than inserting 'you' into the second. For what it's worth, yes, I did some history modules for my degree, but I am no historian, and am not even well suited to the methods of that discipline. I have studied, in moderate depth, some ancillary topics related to the build up to WW1, such as nationalism, industrialization and all that stuff, but never took the modules for empire or war, and I have never once stepped into a dusty archive in search of historical truth.
That said, I recognise that although I can't master what they do, they do it with thoroughness which deserves respect, does it not? So what is wrong with pointing out that a lifetime of research by a hugely qualified Oxford professor shouldn't be written off with the phrase "anyone who thinks that [P] should have their head examined" when P is the product of such detailed research?
As for my highhanded judgments. You guys should really have noticed by now that I am silent on issues I either don't care or know nothing about as a rule, circumspect when issuing snap judgments that I may need to reverse ferret upon, and only forthright when I do genuinely know what I am talking about (or, where deluded, have pretty decent reason to be so). I can't be bothered bluffing, I can be arsed to do some basic fact checking, I'd often prefer it if the other guy was right, and I am not concerned if a little comeuppance comes my way every now and then because that is very interesting.
The bitterest criticism any of you ever gets from me comes when you don't follow the same basic rules. Overcommitment to simplistic snap judgments, or refusing to consider alternatives to your dogma are the sins I can't resist poking. Which is perhaps why I can't recall ever turning my scorn cannon on Rusty, while a few of you get it over and over again. I'm not Koli or Jon, I don't just get pissed off with everyone who doesn't share my conclusions.
