Andrew Richardson writes:
> Whatever the merits of the model proposed in the
> paper [...] the question of whether it will
> will appeal to certain modern political movements
> or not should not be an issue. Are we going to refute
> otherwise credible models of the past just because
> they may offend our 21st century political sensibilities?
> I hope not.
Well (leaving aside the issue of whether this is "credible" or not) that's
not at all what I was saying. To accept wobbly interpretations is one thing,
to accept wobbly interpretations which have potentially harmful political
repercussions is another.