I beg to differ. The canonical definition I have seen used for assumption is "the act of taking something for granted" while that of conjecture is "the formation of theory without sufficient proof". IMO the first gives a sense that there is not room for doubt which the second conveys.fluffy bunny wrote: No, from my point of view, you are making assumptions (... although, to be fair, I tend to an archaic use of English so you might say "presumption". Presumptions and presumptive).
In any case, the context of my posts is probably now clearer.
I am interested in the early BK history because I am fascinated by what makes a person commit his entire wealth and family to a cause and what makes others join him. And of course, BK story has the added intrigue of paranormal events, trials and travails, failed predictions, decline, resurgence, etc.fluffy bunny wrote: Why don't you tell us who you are and what you are really doing for whom?
I tend to think a real historian would come across in a more neutral fashion and be far more cautious given the lack of material you have looked at.
But please report back to us once you have spoken to the BKWSU and got their version of events.
As for neutrality, I don't have a dog in this "tussle" between BKs, PBKs, ex-BKs, ex-PBKs, but I do call it as I see it. Much of my writing is plain sharing of my thoughts, I am not and don't pretend to be writing stuff that is ready for peer-reviewed journals. And I do get intrigued by other stuff around here. So IMO it is a bit unfair if people jump all over my posts for lack of utmost scientific rigor. But of course you are still welcome to do so.
And yes, I will add material to the cite if and when I encounter substantive data that is not already here, of which there is already plenty.