[John Vasco]

I've read this thread with a smile on my face - all this high-flown shit flying around. All the crap about needing a University degree before being competent to write/comment on historical things. Do me a favour! I didn't go to University. Didn't even pass my A-levels either, failed all of them. I was too busy gigging in a rock band in late '60s Liverpool night clubs, so homework went to the wall (shock horror!).

So all of the above does not qualify me to write one word of history. Some may say I should not have bothered anyway. But do I care? No, I don't give a shit. I went out, met the people, went to the institutions, got the information & photos, and out of that came the books. If you like them, great, if you don't, tough, don't buy them. By the way, Adam, I should say at this point that I am not a qualified historian.

The simple rules are: 1) source documents are information which gives the reader (of the document) a guide, but may in many areas be proved incorrect with the passage of time and the uncovering of further information. 2) in setting down anything in writing which is claimed to be 100% correct, the simple legal tenet of 'He who asserts must prove' is the guide by which any assertion must be judged. This second point, however, must not be confused with matters where an author states a belief, rather than a 100% claim. There is a distinction.

There are more important things in life than scholarly bitching. Never lose sight of that. Enjoy what you want to read, as others will do with their readings.
And if you read this Rabe/Jim, you know I do not agree with you all of the time. Hope all is well with you.

Regards,

A pox of a modern author