So what you're saying is that this person is making up everything about the Etruscans because nothing is actually known, and selling it to people who don't know any better? That seems a bit devious on their part.
here is a more applicable (albeit probably unpopular) question: do people participate in a forum to spend time deciphering unnecessary vagueness or to actually discuss things?
After many long discussions and periods of banging my head on the table trying to pin down what is in front of me (I truely love Whatever's description of reading these posts, soo true and so poetic) I can honestly say that at many point trying to understand Wildcat has been some of the best moments. It's not a matter of someone saying 2+2=4 it's the whys and wherefores wrapped in a hint of a clue to what puzzle is being looked at. It's brought some of the best moments of clarity and epiphany that I've known.
I would however agree that at some points you read and just go "What?". I tend to do that now though and smile knowing there's more and then set out like Sherlock, the game is afoot and I'm loving it (and periodically swearing my head off at it ).
To more on the subject matters (it's taken me this long to convince myself my interpretation was correct this time).
Not even gods live forever and to be an expert in Etruscans (not that I have a singular clue who they are) is the same as being an expert in the history of say Franciscan weaponry. No one alive was there so the knowledge is passed on and interpreted. Does it really matter how the knowledge is passed on as long as attempts are made to verify it and find the path from then to now. Can you really say you know anyone who actually knows how a Guisarme was used?
I'll keep schtum on type 3s. I don't think I know any.
What is the difference between the deliberate image builder and the unconscious image builder?
The explicit difference between the charlatan and the poet?
Toss the coin.
If one paints to be seen and another paints to not be seen, but sees the work himself, is he really painting to not be seen?
Or maybe he is painting to be serendipitously seen?
Or intuitively seen?
Which may not really be seen at all.
Or maybe he is even painting to hide?
Trying to hide something which should not be seen.