What's going on here, lads? I look forward to this thread every week. Do we not have anything to talk about?

How 'bout that thread yesterday about Western v. non-Western historians? Fun times! Hooray mod team, I hope you were all stocked up on malt liquor!

Or how about writing methods? Does anyone else feel like their first version of everything is basically just a description of the sources? I mean, sure, there's some analysis and simply selecting the sources is a project in itself. Still, I think when you boil this down, it feels a lot like I'm saying "Here's what all these peopled said."

Also, I finally got around to starting a blog. I'm planning on taking some of my longer posts here, especially ones that received a lot of positive feedback, and making them into blog posts. I figure I've done the writing, and it's a clear demonstration of my ability to write for a broad audience in a fairly contained format, I might as well put my name on it and put it somewhere I can find it easily.

The first law of the philosophy of history is: Debate history, not historians.

Especially when it comes to Russian history, which is such a touchy subject for so many people.

Suppose john Wycliffe never worked with biblical translatio how wpuld this effect the reformation?

Even though it is a tad religious it really did change academia when you think about it the Biblical text was a major part of academia for a long time.