If both Mr. Brooks and Puleo are so knowledgeable, which I don't doubt that they are, why can't they support their claims by pointing to at least one published example? After all, Mr. Brooks claimed that all I needed were books on English guns. Both of them are the ones who ganged up on me from the beginning and made conclusory statements without support. Instead of trying to help, they disparaged my gun and my "wishful thinking". I was innocently sharing this gun with others who I thought would appreciate it and also requesting information. I really didn't think I would be attacked by a gang of bullies.
Count this as the last time that I ever share anything or ask for help here. I found more information on Google than was ever offered to me by the experts here. The information I found from Mr. Thayer does contradict what both Mr. Puleo and Mr. Brooks said, although admittedly it did not support my "wishful thinking" theory. Mr. Thayer actually does collect and publish his research. Does Mr. Brooks? Or does he just build (excuse me) $2,000 range fowlers? I'm not disparaging his work in any way, I think it is quite good, but it doesn't itself qualify him in my mind to unquestioned respect. If I am supposed to accept his undocumented opinion as fact, then his credentials are fair game. He is a gun maker, he relies on seeing the collections of others, and reviewing books and publications. You would think he would be able to point me in the right direction. As for Mr. Puleo, doesn't his profession require sources and documentation? The fact that he wouldn't at least give one helpful citation or source speaks to the fact that he was acting maliciously towards me rather than trying to assist. I don't care who he is, if he can't be friendly and helpful to others then he is just another grumpy old man with an opinion.