Not only was England wrong, he brought receipts that were fun to read, even without having seen the original. I kept thinking about instances where this very thing happened, and not only wouldn've...
Not only was England wrong, he brought receipts that were fun to read, even without having seen the original.
I kept thinking about instances where this very thing happened, and not only wouldn've believed it, but brought modern evidence.
When Tom Scott hires a research assistant, you know things are getting interesting. Also, TIL: you can hire a research assistant. Could've used that a few times for my magazine.
When Tom Scott hires a research assistant, you know things are getting interesting.
Also, TIL: you can hire a research assistant. Could've used that a few times for my magazine.
I like this video, and I think it'd be useful if in future he went into how this mistake was popularised - which was the first big source to say "if you didn't have a fire mark they'd let the...
I like this video, and I think it'd be useful if in future he went into how this mistake was popularised - which was the first big source to say "if you didn't have a fire mark they'd let the property burn"?
Because there's loads of stuff like this and I'm curious if there's a one or two sources in the 1890s - 1910s that are churning out tripe, or if there's just loads of unreliable sources that were all doing it.
Ah, citogenesis In the report by Scott's research guy he does say: "The basis for their assertions [that fires were left to burn] cannot usually be determined, because the accounts have not been...
In the report by Scott's research guy he does say: "The basis for their assertions [that fires were left to burn] cannot usually be determined, because the accounts have not been referenced back to primary evidence, such as contemporary records and commentaries. "
Not only was England wrong, he brought receipts that were fun to read, even without having seen the original.
I kept thinking about instances where this very thing happened, and not only wouldn've believed it, but brought modern evidence.
When Tom Scott hires a research assistant, you know things are getting interesting.
Also, TIL: you can hire a research assistant. Could've used that a few times for my magazine.
I like this video, and I think it'd be useful if in future he went into how this mistake was popularised - which was the first big source to say "if you didn't have a fire mark they'd let the property burn"?
Because there's loads of stuff like this and I'm curious if there's a one or two sources in the 1890s - 1910s that are churning out tripe, or if there's just loads of unreliable sources that were all doing it.
Ah, citogenesis
In the report by Scott's research guy he does say: "The basis for their assertions [that fires were left to burn] cannot usually be determined, because the accounts have not been referenced back to primary evidence, such as contemporary records and commentaries. "