<HTML>Hi again Mark,
I agree with your thoughts of how to make the sites more helpful to the newcomers. I also agree that those showing up often seem to have more excitement than perhaps should be warranted (maybe the bigger question there should be looking at why this kind of stuff does cause the excitement, ie, what are we "wanting" from the info.... but that could be a whole different thread in itself). As for putting together all the info., someone *very* dedicated (and very objective) would have to do it since it would indeed be a major effort. So let me end here for now with one of my usually bizzare angles of thought... has anyone considered GH books as just that... an "amateur" (in the sense of versus a professional archaeologist/historian) who put together as much information as he could come up with and feel that he had adequately verified at the time? A way of compiling what was hard for non-professionals to "get a handle on" and present it in the form of a hypothesis? Note that I am in *no* way saying this is what happened... I'm simply asking those who read this post whether they can view it at all from such a perspective and, if so, would it change/alter at all their comments/outlook on the situation. Just wondering if it would seem to *dis-arm* some of the emotional response that often surrounds simple discussions here and at GHMB...
Litz</HTML>
