Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 3133941, member: 88829&quot;]I&#039;m sorry Andrew, I mean no disrespect, neither to you nor to these other two scholars.&nbsp; However, in the world of real scholarship this approach doesn&#039;t cut it.&nbsp; Inasmuch as other renowned scholars such as Alfoldi, Crawford, Colin Kraay, have published their reasons for concluding that the issues Crawford lumps under 480 were NOT all issued prior to the assassination, we are going to need more than a sense of conviction by these two before we can rearrange things.&nbsp; If Ted passed away before the things the three of you discussed could be written in a defensible form, then it will be up to the remaining two of you to do it and put up the defense.&nbsp; Or it passes into oblivion.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t want list members to misunderstand me.&nbsp; I appreciated that Ted knew me from my days as a grad student at the University of Chicago, and was sympathetic to my repeated attempts to participate in the ANS Summer Seminars (which I never could afford).&nbsp; But from the impression I got of him in our various dialogs, I do not believe that he would have wanted his speculations canonized in this way without a more rigorous defense of the points of disagreement with previous scholarship.&nbsp; Then again, maybe they weren&#039;t just speculations.&nbsp; Maybe he had more.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Since we cannot yet access the relevant articles, and you seem to know something, can you say:&nbsp; Have these reasons been articulated yet, or are they likely to be?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in