So, I have asked legitimate questions and raised legitimate points, and you are making some kind of fuss about this. To understand what you know, I need to know what evidence and reasoning led you to your conclusions. Even when I read other Chess historians, I focus on the evidence and reasoning they provide, and I do not accept what any of them say simply on the basis of authority. I would treat any source on the subject in the same way. If that's a problem for you, it raises red flags.
So, I have asked legitimate questions and raised legitimate points, and you are making some kind of fuss about this. To understand what you know, I need to know what evidence and reasoning led you to your conclusions. Even when I read other Chess historians, I focus on the evidence and reasoning they provide, and I do not accept what any of them say simply on the basis of authority. I would treat any source on the subject in the same way. If that's a problem for you, it raises red flags.