I disagree, there's plenty of depth to the article. What actual history have i misrepresented? Admittedly I've covered a huge span of time so there wasn't a lot of time for specific details. By all means spin back and tell me where you think I've led people astray.

This comment is standing on the sidelines and shouting 'FOUL PLAY!' without really being clear what you're objecting to exactly. I think there's plenty of capacity for decent chats and only good things come out of debating complex issues. Come back to me with some more views on why I'm wrong. :o)