I had not meant to represent myself as a final
authority on all questions without further discussion. I had made some observations which
are pretty accepted in scholarly circles. Certainly there is wiggle room and possibility for debate.
But, Aaron, just out of high school, how can you
simply dictate an interpretation of history
that is not consistent in terms of definitions
and contains practically no carefully assembled examples and logic?

I suspect what you said is merely the rhetoric
of bluster, not a well-reasoned thought based on a deep reading of the matter.