The historical method and those that would flunk History 101

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Oct 28, 2014 at 18:10

Our dear Kuva-yi the propagandist: You call yourself a historian and then you post personal "opinions" as your historical evidence? Are you for real? Mr and you must pardon me ignorant the study of history is about answering the most difficult question: What really happaned?

What you are posting as evidence is no historical evidence at all but only personal opinions and no more and this is not any different from quoting "Comments" made by readers about an article posted on the web or a newspaper. and use them as the answer to reconstruct what really happened. Let me guess this one went over your head right?

Let me help you more how do you know that the Italian newspaper's journalist that you quoted if he had a grudge against the Greek Cypriots! May be he is a Turk and many Turks live in Italy right? you do not know! or he was paid by the Turks to dish out his opinion? we do not know! You do not get it do you? You have to know every thing about the source behind the source you do not get this one either right?

But again your likes believe that an Arabian warlord and caravan raider spoke to a deity via an angel and if so then you can believe anything

You are and you must pardon me a victim of poor education in Turkey

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".