No, I think anyone who writes a book of historical facts (hence the name “history book”) based on research is a historian. And if I were lost, that’d fall under cartography, not history. See, cartography is the study of making maps. Maps are to cartographers as history books are to historians. Make sense?
Damn, selective reading is a tough diagnosis. Is there a pattern, like you only understand every other word or something, or is it just completely random?
Well this question is very different than the other question, but both are intentionally foolish misrepresentations of my statements so I reckon my answers would be “wrong” no matter what I said. So I’ll just tell you what you wanted to hear the first time: yes, I think “writing a book makes you a historian”. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
No, I think anyone who writes a book of historical facts (hence the name “history book”) based on research is a historian. And if I were lost, that’d fall under cartography, not history. See, cartography is the study of making maps. Maps are to cartographers as history books are to historians. Make sense?
So, writing a book makes you a historian. It’s not studying history?
Damn, selective reading is a tough diagnosis. Is there a pattern, like you only understand every other word or something, or is it just completely random?
Are you dodging the question? What makes someone a historian? Is anybody who writes a book on history automatically an authority on history?
Well this question is very different than the other question, but both are intentionally foolish misrepresentations of my statements so I reckon my answers would be “wrong” no matter what I said. So I’ll just tell you what you wanted to hear the first time: yes, I think “writing a book makes you a historian”. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
I figured.
I know, you’re trolling attempts were quite heavy-handed, gotta work on your subtlety!
Now whose trolling?
Oh sorry, should be your, thanks for the correction. I’ll leave it.