I must admit, however, that the reason *why* this upsets me so desperately (which must be no surprised to anyone of reasonable intellect) is that it reminds of of my reaction when I first learned of the Goddess--in a so-called "Christian society" few men and women are informed that the Judaic "God" who gave rise to the God of Christianity just so *happened* to have a Goddess-consort by His side! Well, that's a pretty big revelation, and quite a juicy detail and nugget of information that shouldn't be so blatantly ignored, don't ya' think? Well, when I came this this realization-- that knowledge had been made LESS accessible to me, rather than more-- I was *PISSED*! (Something that any *reasonable* researcher and student can sympathize with.) After all, the job of the Historian is *not* to ommit research just because they find it inconvenient and cannot otherwise respond to it. Such tactics are blatantly misleading, and I (though academia ought to uphold these standards, also) hold NO place for it! It is misleading one's readership, hoping that they are too stupid to know the difference and accept one uncritically of their claims. Well, I for one, am smarter than that-- and anyone who tried to uphold such specious reasoning should be held in contempt; hell, they should be ashamed of themselves, for they have an unacknowledged agenda! I pitty the scholars who thinks they can lie to ME, as I will treat them and their work in the most harsh way immaginable (and I would be justified in doing so, too)! How dare they? (Ever since then my B.S.-Detector has been set on HIGH.) How long do they think that we can indefinately be made fools of, eh? (Similarly, don;t you think it would have been prudent that not all scholars and researchers agree with him, and are coming out with formiddible research to the contrary (particularly from continental Europe), instead of ignoring it and presenting it as though no such research is extent? I, for one, hold academia to far higher standards than they apparently believe they ought to hold. Something sorely needs to be written about intellectual dishonesty within the academic institution--it's running amok!

I often wonder what was going through Hutton's mind when he stated unequivocally that there was not one single whiff of paganism in the early-modern period or that same period's witchcraft-belief, and then go on to cite a variety of scholars as being in agreement with him; but if one actually *reads* those cited works, they find quite the opposite--they *don't* agree with him! Well, this presents two things: 1.) Does he not think that anyone will have an interest in reading any further the texts he is citing? And, 2.) It tells me that he may not take his readership very seriously, as though we are on one level, while he is on another (pressumibly "superior"?) level!

And, as for accessibility, I wsa primarily considering the research coming out of continental Europe, presenting it by ignorance that no such research exists in direct contrast to his own preferred psoition [eg. Eva Pocs and Claude Lecauteux, et al., while he misrepresents Carlo Ginzburg, as if he will not allow it to say anything that he does not first approve--in other words, it only says what he allows it to say!]. *shakes his head* After all, I shouldn't have had to find this research out for myself--Hutton should have volunteered it; indeed, this was his duty! Ask any member within any scientific discipline, and they will tell you that they are duty-bound to volunteer conclusions contrary to their own--even the laughible Cynthia Eller made staunch note of this, though she did not so much as follow her own advice even once! I demand no less than this, and am sure that no one unreasonable would think contrary to such meticulous standards.

Well, one must wonder why no scholars have published a review of Hutton's work, calling him on these clearly signifigant errors, of which I could go on and on, for they fill his texts copiously?! However, in Hutton's defense, I bring him up because he is the scholar with whose work I am best aquainted.

I must admit, however, that the reason *why* this upsets me so desperately (which must be no surprised to anyone of reasonable intellect) is that it reminds of of my reaction when I first learned of the Goddess--in a so-called "Christian society" few men and women are informed that the Judaic "God" who gave rise to the God of Christianity just so *happened* to have a Goddess-consort by His side! Well, that's a pretty big revelation, and quite a juicy detail and nugget of information that shouldn't be so blatantly ignored, don't ya' think? Well, when I came this this realization-- that knowledge had been made LESS accessible to me, rather than more-- I was *PISSED*! (Something that any *reasonable* researcher and student can sympathize with.) After all, the job of the Historian is *not* to ommit research just because they find it inconvenient and cannot otherwise respond to it. Such tactics are blatantly misleading, and I (though academia ought to uphold these standards, also) hold NO place for it! It is misleading one's readership, hoping that they are too stupid to know the difference and accept one uncritically of their claims. Well, I for one, am smarter than that-- and anyone who tried to uphold such specious reasoning should be held in contempt; hell, they should be ashamed of themselves, for they have an unacknowledged agenda! I pitty the scholars who thinks they can lie to ME, as I will treat them and their work in the most harsh way immaginable (and I would be justified in doing so, too)! How dare they? (Ever since then my B.S.-Detector has been set on HIGH.) How long do they think that we can indefinately be made fools of, eh? (Similarly, don;t you think it would have been prudent that not all scholars and researchers agree with him, and are coming out with formiddible research to the contrary (particularly from continental Europe), instead of ignoring it and presenting it as though no such research is extent? I, for one, hold academia to far higher standards than they apparently believe they ought to hold. Something sorely needs to be written about intellectual dishonesty within the academic institution--it's running amok!

I often wonder what was going through Hutton's mind when he stated unequivocally that there was not one single whiff of paganism in the early-modern period or that same period's witchcraft-belief, and then go on to cite a variety of scholars as being in agreement with him; but if one actually *reads* those cited works, they find quite the opposite--they *don't* agree with him! Well, this presents two things: 1.) Does he not think that anyone will have an interest in reading any further the texts he is citing? And, 2.) It tells me that he may not take his readership very seriously, as though we are on one level, while he is on another (pressumibly "superior"?) level!

And, as for accessibility, I wsa primarily considering the research coming out of continental Europe, presenting it by ignorance that no such research exists in direct contrast to his own preferred psoition [eg. Eva Pocs and Claude Lecauteux, et al., while he misrepresents Carlo Ginzburg, as if he will not allow it to say anything that he does not first approve--in other words, it only says what he allows it to say!]. *shakes his head* After all, I shouldn't have had to find this research out for myself--Hutton should have volunteered it; indeed, this was his duty! Ask any member within any scientific discipline, and they will tell you that they are duty-bound to volunteer conclusions contrary to their own--even the laughible Cynthia Eller made staunch note of this, though she did not so much as follow her own advice even once! I demand no less than this, and am sure that no one unreasonable would think contrary to such meticulous standards.

Well, one must wonder why no scholars have published a review of Hutton's work, calling him on these clearly signifigant errors, of which I could go on and on, for they fill his texts copiously?! However, in Hutton's defense, I bring him up because he is the scholar with whose work I am best aquainted.