P.S. On my Bryan error.
fm does not know how I read books. I wade through detail after detail, most of it interesting enough to keep me going, looking for the "knicker's down" bits. And I thought that what Mr Bryan had said was pertinent to the matters at hand here. In view of the evolution of thought having long since clarified all matters where plausibility had been ruled out. Such as us not walking around showing our dicks.
Nudist colonies are there to tell you that not everybody thinks such a way of going about is implausible. But after seeing a few shots of them relaxing I can see why it was agreed that it is implausible.
The fact of the continuing debate is proof that both sides can give a plausible defence of their convictions. So it boils down to how the convictions arose. Which is a sociological and psychological problem.
Then there is Prof. Hofstadter's reason for including it to consider. He needn't do.
Knowing who was president to way back when doesn't interest me in the slightest. In literature, as in life, there are shining nuggets and there are slag heaps.
I bet fm doesn't know that Theodore Roosevelt was a good mate of Rider Haggard. And after reading about Mr Roosevelt in Prof. Hofstadter's fine book I am in a bit of a quandry. I have assumed that Rider Haggard was taking the piss for a long time. Every since I came back to him in early middle-age. Now that I know something of Mr Roosevelt I am wondering whether Haggard was stark, staring mad. As some say. That's assuming Mr Roosevelt wasn't taking the piss as well and that's why they were good pals.
fm is simply claiming the intellectual high ground for the way he reads. And it results in him picking up on a pedantic detail and not answering the beef of the post. Which is the intellectual low ground.