I can't prove that Legion "likes to" but, in point of fact he does write what might be charitably described as, "long, pointless off topic lectures."
In order to determine what is "pointless" or not, one must have some framework within which any statement, lecture, rant, etc., can be evaluated. In this case, your's is a nameless friend you rely on for the
entirety of your approach to historical methods and are utterly incapable to present the remotest hint that you are even aware of elementary issues that relate to historical studies. The extent of your ability to determine, in this case, how relevant or not my posts are rests upon you anonymous "friend" whose supposed conclusions conflict with named historians in published, peer-reviewed literature.
Bunyip, who has morphed from an historian to one with an undergrad major in history to an expert in espionage (and whose capacity to evaluate sources was aptly demonstrated when he quote-mined a translator's commentary claiming it was Tacitus he was quoting and who has claimed to be an expert in more than one field despite admitting his degrees don't make him any kind of specialist whatsoever) is at least direct when he lies.
You hide behind references to specialists you can't quote, won't cite, and can't support with evidence of even a cursory familiarity with historical research in general and this topic in particular.
Bunyip has contradicted himself more times than I care to remember (but have demonstrated elsewhere) while you standby from the sidelines making suggestive comments like the above despite your complete inability and demonstrable refusal to support any case you have by reference to anything that indicates you remotely understand how historical methods (particularly as the apply to ancient history), still less any knowledge of this topic.
You originally claimed to be in some sense a scientist or scholar who participates or has participates in academia. Here, you can't even so much as indicate what the fields are that are relevant, still less journals/monograph series/etc., that are and
still less that you have adhered to the kind of standards expected of early undergraduate studies.
This entire thread is a ""long, pointless attempt by someone who is as equally bereft of any familiarity with any relevant studies, methods, or any of that which makes-up what must be addressed to take this question seriously.
My "pointless" posts in this case have consisted of attempts on my part to get those like you to appreciate the nature of historical questions both specific to this question and historical research in general (I've long since given up on Bunyip, as his ignorance is deliberate and his biases demonstrated by various documented lies).
I'm fine with being written off as stupid, ignorant, insance, etc., when those whose motivations for such interpretions are intelligible. Fundamentalist-like dogma espoused here is worse than "pointless"- it is one of many mouthpieces by which trusting persons are swayed by arguments that they can't evaluate.
Your entire participation in all discussions on this topic amounts to your assertions about history, historiography, and our evidence which you do not base on logic, historical methods, or more than the kind of familiarity with the topic one could obtain by a "cliff's notes" to a Wikipedia entry. And when I try to give you more than this., your utter inability to situate historical arguments of this type within scholarship may seem "pointless", but your failure to address my questions (same with Bunyip) are evidence of how little knowledge you possess to determine what is or isn't meaningful.
Your response here is typical of all your and Bunyips's responses to my posts, whether I tried to adhere to Bunyip's nonsensical equating of "appeal to authority" with references to scholarship or no: write off as pointless arguments you don't specific or refer to and haven't addressed nor for which you possess the requisite knowledge to address.
