not bothered to read or simply have not processed the content of the various posts here Mike concerning this subject. Why that should be the case, I hesitate to say--you certainly have had more than enough time to do so--although I have my suspicions. Be that as it may, I do thank you for chiming in. I was beginning to feel unduly ignored.

While I take no issue with your waving high the banner for strict, scrupulous standards of historical research and insightful analysis and plausible interpretation, I do object to your self-righteously even sanctimoniously mounting your high horse to presumptively attack others in the context of this open forum for not toeing the Mike Mihaljevich line--"poor academic conduct"? really?--as you would prefer to see it toed. Frustrating as it clearly is for you, it simply is not incumbent upon anyone here to police their posts to satisfy your more rigorous, professional, peer-reviewable standards, standards which most of us here are perfectly aware of and frankly needn't be reminded of by you. That isn't what this place is about, something you seem narrow-mindedly intent upon failing to understand.

It goes without saying that it is your prerogative to voice your opinions and objections as you see fit, although in the name of mutual respect if not collegiality I might counsel you to tone it down a bit. Passion in these matters is all well and good, but employing an elephant gun to take aim at what amounts, in my opinion, to a flea is self-evidently overkill.

I would likewise suggest that a more effective method of criticism going forward than the blunderbuss approach you seem to favor i.e. charging someone in the most general terms with an agenda, is to be more specific, which is to say more targeted in those criticisms, item by item. I suspect that you will counter that doing so is a waste of your time, which understandably is precious, that you have better, more important things to do, etc. Notwithstanding, it would be helpful.

To respond more specifically to your post here:

1) You have no way of knowing whether there are only "two kinds of people in this field of interest." It may serve your argument to make that simple-minded, essentialist, dichotomous assertion, but for all you know there may be an infinite number of such "kinds" extant between the two extremes. Moreover, as much as we might like to believe to the contrary, as much as we might strive to attain so-called objectivity, scholarly or otherwise, the truth is that we can never entirely eliminate personal bias or "partialities" from our study and interpretation of History. One's autobiography, as well as one's sensibility and general intelligence, both emotional and cognitive, preclude the realization of such an "ideal." It's a unicorn. To believe otherwise is to kid oneself. The interpretation of historical matters is an art, not a science, and some are better artists than are others.

2) You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you claim that Joyce's "dialogue is anything but threatening." On the other, you claim that her approach is "destructive." Granted that there is a distinction to be drawn between those two descriptors, but which is it? Is not that which is "destructive" by definition not also "threatening" in some form or fashion? Threateningly destructive. Destructively threatening. You are being inconsistent at best. At worst you are deliberately playing semantic games.

3) You are, deliberately or otherwise, misreading my use of the word threatening by, once again, egocentrically personalizing it. Why on earth would you contend that I thought you were personally being threatened by Joyce's destructive "dialogue"? I suspect that you are not threatened by much. No, the "threat" I was referring to, taking my cue from you and your posts, was, as you see it, to the interpretative Record. You really need to cease, out of insecurity or some other reason, believing that everything is about you as the Last Defender of Historical Integrity. Newsflash: it isn't.

4) I specifically prefaced my remarks in one of my posts by stating that I did not know you and so was in no position to "psycho-analyze" why you behave the way you do. May I suggest that you go back and re-read? So then why pretend that that is what I was doing or attempting to do? You either failed to understand the post, are subject to feeling persecuted where no such persecution exists, or you are being aggressively disingenuous in order to make a point, however minor. To assert, as you do, that I am "absurdly chalking up" anything to your insecurity is just another example of both how sloppy your interpretation of the content of so many of the posts here, but your penchant for personalization.

I'll leave it there although there is so much more to say. Meanwhile, I encourage you to continue to wave your banner high while mounting the barricades in the name of fighting the good fight. Have a terrific Sunday.