 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 513 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Any history book worth it's salt presents analysis based on the facts at hand, or at least those presented. Unluckily some choose to cherry-pick facts that support a pre-arranged analysis (or dogma?). DiLorenzo comes to mind, seeing only the moss in a stand of redwoods...
Perret's case is a different sort. Are the (incorrect) facts germane to the analysis? Does correcting the facts change the analysis?
If not, why are they included in the first place?
HankC