<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Horse Imports: A Zombie Myth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2006/10/27/horse-imports-zombie-myth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2006/10/27/horse-imports-zombie-myth/</link>
	<description>Failing better at understanding the past</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Investigations of a Dog &#187; Gentleman Amateurs</title>
		<link>http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2006/10/27/horse-imports-zombie-myth/#comment-666</link>
		<dc:creator>Investigations of a Dog &#187; Gentleman Amateurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2006/10/27/horse-imports-zombie-myth/#comment-666</guid>
		<description>[...] I subscribe to the view that works need to be judged on their own merits. If the research and writing are good, qualifications don&#8217;t matter. I put this into practice in my own PhD thesis by citing the works of non-academic historians such as Alan Turton and John Tincey, whose work I admired and found useful. Alan and John both write for Partizan Press, a publisher specialising primarily in books on the English Civil Wars aimed at wargamers, re-enactors, and other amateur enthusiasts (a niche market which demonstrates the inadequacy of the academic description &#8220;popular&#8221;). This is something that I suspect many academics would look down on, but judged purely on quality and usefulness, their output is worthwhile. My post on Horse Imports: A Zombie Myth demonstrated that basic errors and misunderstandings can be found in the works of academic and non-academic authors alike. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I subscribe to the view that works need to be judged on their own merits. If the research and writing are good, qualifications don&#8217;t matter. I put this into practice in my own PhD thesis by citing the works of non-academic historians such as Alan Turton and John Tincey, whose work I admired and found useful. Alan and John both write for Partizan Press, a publisher specialising primarily in books on the English Civil Wars aimed at wargamers, re-enactors, and other amateur enthusiasts (a niche market which demonstrates the inadequacy of the academic description &#8220;popular&#8221;). This is something that I suspect many academics would look down on, but judged purely on quality and usefulness, their output is worthwhile. My post on Horse Imports: A Zombie Myth demonstrated that basic errors and misunderstandings can be found in the works of academic and non-academic authors alike. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
