On Apr 30, 10:26 am, RookHouse <mor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:17 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't see anything "nice" about ill-informed historical writing.
> > Yes, it it's a minor thing, but it implies the rest of your research
> > is of a like nature.
>
> > BTW, I'm a heck of a lot nicer than Edward Winter would be.- Hide
quoted text -
>
> Look, I am fairly new to this and I don't claim to be this great chess
> historian.
I certainly don't claim to be great either.
This is purely a small hobby for me. My intent is not to
> spew "ill-informed" facts. I've seen your credentials on your blog
> and I am not even in the same league with you with respect to chess
> history.
Thank you, but we are working in the same field, which makes us on the
same level. You are my peer, as much as I am, I hope, Dr. Spinrad's
peer.
> If you feel I can improve on various things that I post, then I am
> happy to hear criticism from someone as well informed as you. I just
> don't think you need to attack me in the manner that you have chosen.
> I'm really not a bad guy, just a novice.
I don't think you are a bad guy at all. But respect for the subject,
which is also respect for the reader, requires you to have some reason
for a statement other than ' I heard it somewhere'. I strongly suggest
reading articles by John Hilbert and Edward Winter, along with Dr.
Spinrad's and Anders Thulin's. Note that even when they speculate,
there's some basis to it, and it's based on their research in both
primary and secondary source material.
If you prefer, I'll continue the discussion privately. However, I
return emails only a little more frequently than Dr. Spinrad does, so
please be gentle with me if I don't respond right away. :-)
|
