Well I think you'll enjoy the venture, BB. L'affaire Bellesiles is an outstanding example of the kind of scholarship one can expect from careerist academics steeped in relativism who believe that the only good interpretation of data is an "alternative" PC interpretation.
So it would seem, beckett. I note he uses the signature "pot calling the kettle black" technique, which seems standard for such folks: Always blame the other guy for doing what you are doing yourself. He claims his critic Prof. Sternstein is "politically driven." Yet Sternstein "support[s] gun regulations, especially in urban areas like New York City...." He notes his congressman while he was resident in that city was Charles Schumer, "the bete noir of the NRA," and that he supported him.
Sternstein concludes thusly: "...I hope historians...in the future will be faithful to the evidence and honest in pursuing the answers the evidence provides and will not, like Prof. Bellesiles, distort, embellish, and falsify sources in pursuit of their private, personal version of the truth."
One can hope. But vigilence seems to be in order these days. Meanwhile, a lot of people may be seriously misled by the "works" of historians like Bellesiles -- who mainly seem to be in the business of falsifying reality.
Thanks again for the bump, beckett. That's a very nice site -- I bookmarked it. best, bb.