There was a wish: A new Forum

The crowned one

It is only the terminology I mind - the idea that the whole area was imaginary, and there could not be any truth in it, like. Myths as related to tarot would be lovely :) I LOVE talking about the various mythologies !

Right here. Any of these idea's could be expanded on in the thread.

That is EXACTLY what I would like to see an end to. Why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to talk about pyramids or gypsies without being constantly called out ? Just because it has been pretty ,much disproved doesn't mean it cannot be interesting as a springboard. But if that is going to be the attitude, that kind of makes my case about how the less pleasant among the self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS will always treat us lesser mortals who like to bandy about interesting ideas

DAMN that's sad.


I agree, but A historical section of a forum, where the basic history is known makes no sense to me for foundation type stuff, like pyramids and gypsies.It is like discussing Pre Copernican views of the sun with modern astronomers and telling them your fable is true. I am open to hypothetical conjectural, but if there is a foundation that is true, should we not at least work from there? This goes for any topic from knitting, pokemon cards, to maths.
 

gregory

Also maybe because it is about this area and so perhaps it is smart to let those who feel they will be affected by it see it and not have a nasty turn if it happens?
 

The crowned one

I'm not clear why this thread has been left in Historical Research

I thought about this the other day, I am not the mod here, but I did not report the thread because the discussion would and does effect the historic forum, those that use it most will see the original ( what to me started as tongue in cheek) post and have a chance to respond to it. Ironically it is also bring new blood to this underutilized section of the forum, I do my greatest learning on Aeclectic here... quietly.
 

Titadrupah

That is EXACTLY what I would like to see an end to. Why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to talk about pyramids or gypsies without being constantly called out ? Just because it has been pretty ,much disproved doesn't mean it cannot be interesting as a springboard. But if that is going to be the attitude, that kind of makes my case about how the less pleasant among the self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS will always treat us lesser mortals who like to bandy about interesting ideas

DAMN that's sad.

It was a joke, of course I agree with you.
 

philebus

I'm sorry Gregory, but I hope that I've misunderstood your use of the terms "self-defined REAL historians" and "self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS", they seem to imply that their only legitimacy as historians is from self proclamation and as such would be a little too much like poisoning the well. I am sorry if this was not your intent but that is how it reads to me. A real and perhaps serious historian is one that studies history and a good historian does so with the rigour and observance of good methods that make that study as fruitful as possible. These methods are not just plucked from the trees but have a strong philosophical foundation shared with other empirical studies. Clearly the people concerned study history, their adherence to good practice and observance in study and reasoning is the extent to which they are good historians - that has nothing to do with self proclamation but can be judged by all.
 

cardlady22

My disadvantage & dilemma is that I don't have the education, background, training to know what is being done. I do read . . . and read and read. :p
I admire and respect the Big Posters here in the Historical Research forum, but feel that there is too much to learn before I can even begin a conversation. My funds are limited and my local library a pathetic excuse.

TCO, a single "myth thread" is much too disjointed and rambly to keep track of the ideas and discussions.
 

The crowned one

TCO, a single "myth thread" is much too disjointed and rambly to keep track of the ideas and discussions.

Pull an idea out that tickles your fancy and start a thread :)
 

gregory

It was a joke, of course I agree with you.
Oh good :)

I'm sorry Gregory, but I hope that I've misunderstood your use of the terms "self-defined REAL historians" and "self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS", they seem to imply that their only legitimacy as historians is from self proclamation and as such would be a little too much like poisoning the well. I am sorry if this was not your intent but that is how it reads to me. A real and perhaps serious historian is one that studies history and a good historian does so with the rigour and observance of good methods that make that study as fruitful as possible. These methods are not just plucked from the trees but have a strong philosophical foundation shared with other empirical studies. Clearly the people concerned study history, their adherence to good practice and observance in study and reasoning is the extent to which they are good historians - that has nothing to do with self proclamation but can be judged by all.
What I meant was that there are quite often posts which effectively say to most of us "we know and you don't, so go away." And - well, that is people telling the rest of us - "styling themselves" - that they are somehow in charge of historical, as the only ones with any right to posit anything, as being better than others.

I don't choose to do the invidious and name names, but it is why MANY people here - however much they may actually be able to contribute - never post in historical and just lurk. Many of us are actually WELL aware of what constitutes good research - I know I certainly am - I have degrees coming out of my ears, which included much historical research - just not in tarot. I know what criteria should be applied to factual issues. I also know that more fanciful discussions do not need to meet the same criteria, and I am tired of seeing them being treated as if they did by those people.

Sure there are also people who have no idea - but who here has the right to tell them to b*gger off ? AT is an OPEN forum. If you post misinformation about neumes and the tropes of Kezia the nun, I will correct that information- but I will never say you have to right to post because you aren't trained in early and medieval music.
 

The crowned one

Ph good :)


What I meant was that there are quite often posts which effectively say to most of us "we know and you don't, so go away." And - well, that is people telling the rest of us - "styling themselves" - that they are somehow in charge of historical, as the only ones with any right to posit anything, as being better than others.

Sure there are also people who have no idea - but who here has the right to tell them to b*gger off ? AT is an OPEN forum. If you post misinformation about neumes and the tropes of Kezia the nun, I will correct that information- but I will never say you have to right to post because you aren't trained in early and medieval music.

Ah, Yes I agree to a degree, I have seen this happened but generally it is the fairly well informed vs the fairly well or better informed! We read these posts, banters, conflicts and decide we better not post as the slightly under informed due to fear of being ridiculed ?... So we need tighter moderation, politer experts, or more forgiving minds.. all these things and more.. not a new forum? Elitism and snobbery is a no no, and the new students must be made to feel welcomed.
 

gregory

Ah, Yes I agree to a degree, I have seen this happened but generally it is the fairly well informed vs the fairly well or better informed! We read these posts, banters, conflicts and decide we better not post as the slighter under informed due to fear of being ridiculed ?... So we need tighter moderation, politer experts, or more forgiving minds.. all these things and more.. not a new forum? Elitism and snobbery is a no no, and the new students must be made to feel welcomed.

Thank you. :)