And you seem a bit defensive to me...After all, you asked, you got answered.
The line between professional and amateur is pretty thin anyway.
There is of course a big difference between amateurs and amateurs. There are those who devote a lot of time and intellect to studieing history with an aim to gain more knowledge, and who probably can be quite as expertly, if not more, as professionals. These I like.
Then again there are those who have once read a book about something (or worse, saw something on discovery channel), and, whithout wondering about the trustabilty or objectivity of heir source, and whithout any cross reference, are utterly convinced of their own thruth and knowledge. These I like not.
My best friend's boyfriend is one of those last ones. He once read a very old and veryvery outdated book of facts, and now he thinks he knows more than I do after six years of uni and he keeps spewing these '60ies theories like they are a godgiven thruth. He even once stated that he was utterly convinced he knew better than me, 'because he read a book about it'. Arrogant dork.
Anyway, I'm of the opinion it does not matter who is amateur or professional, as long as one is willing to doubt oneself once in a while.
Edited by Aelfgifu - 05-Jan-2007 at 06:46