"academics always couch there conclusions in conditional language because they have enough education and intelligence to know that our cumulative understanding of history is still incomplete.
They also know that our conclusions about history is always tentative because pretty much everything we know still only gives us "strong reason to believe" since the eyewitnesses aren't here to tell us."
And yet...after YOU saying all that and I must presume understand it, YOU make the "black-and-white" comment that this opinion papper is an "inconvenient fact of history".
"You simply don't have the intellect or education to get how ignorant and misinformed this post (which, in your ignorant arrogance you posted TWICE!) makes you look."
Really...?...I'm not the one calling someone's opinion a "fact of history". Do you realize how ignorant and misinformed this shows you to be...?
Something can be a fact yet academics will still use conditional language. Global warming is a fact, yet climate scientists still make statements based on likelihoods. Evolution is a fact, yet scientists still talk in terms of theory.
Keep flailing son. It just shows how desperately ignorant you are.