[ariel]

Ian,
I find it difficult to agree with your thesis that only "professionals" should be subjected to criticism. Every person who expresses an opinion, either oral or, more pertinently, printed, passes it to the public domain. From there on, this opinion becomes a fair target to counterarguments and, yes, criticism. This crititism should NOT be directed at the publisher whose role is technical and whose motive is to make money, but to the author himself, who is the source of the presumably fallacious or objectionable content. Even peer-reviewed publications do not enjoy immunity from criticism, whether because of some negligence of the original reviewer or when new data become available.
None of us have seen the forthcoming book by Mr. Khorasani but many plan on buying it (I do).Until this book is out, any critique of it is inappropriate. After that, it will become a fair target and the opinions will be divided, not dissimilar to any other book. An argument that this is a work of an "amateur" that should enjoy relaxed standards of excellence does not appeal to me . I am sure that Mr. Khorasani would also find it insultingly patronizing if a fruit of his 8 year long labor is not viewed as deserving serious treatment. After all, people are still critiquing Dante and Shakespeare, very gifted amateurs by your own definition because they did not subject their works to peer review. Tirri's book was justifiably criticised by people who wanted to have an exhausive academic treatise and justifiably praised by others (myself included) who wanted to see real collector-grade weapons.
The argument about the Armenian King's sword was aimed not at Mr. Khorasani but at the obvious misattribution of this artefact by the museum that fell victim to a legend. I see no reason why the stance by the museum's owners cannot be challenged. It has nothing to do with their religious beliefs or with any revision of Armenian history. It has to do with shoddy scholarship and a lot of wishful thinking. These are legitimate reasons to re-examine the sword and if the bubble of the legend bursts, so be it. I applaud Mr. Khorasani's decision to examine this sword personally. Any final conclusions reached by him and posted on the Internet or published elsewhere will generate controversy, either by the supporters of the legend or by it's opponents. And this is how it was for generations, and this is how it should be.
But the issue is much deeper than that. This Forum's atmosphere is characterized by openness, " no-holds-barred" approach and refusal to bow to any self-appointed "authority". We do not have sacred cows, nor do we venerate cattle breeders. Of course, we all value and respect the experience of some of our members in Moro weapons, Krises, SE Asian arms, Turkish or Caucasian blades etc. I would not dream of keeping a particular opinion about a Dha if you, Andrew and Mark classified it as something different. But, equally, I would not hesitate to challenge you to back up your verdict with reasoned arguments. Such attitude was always accepted by every Forumite as a sine qua non of our small commune.
We can, and should, demand acceptable standards of discourse, but the freedom of expressing one's opinion and bringing up pertinent facts should not be curtailed.
If we enter the slippery slope of agreeing with everything and everybody, subjugating our freedom of expression to whims and fancy of a "guru" and living in fear of offending somebody's ego by challenging his pet idea, we face a real danger of becoming an insipid , mutual admiration group exchanging meaningless pleasantries. And that would be sad...
Best wishes to everybody.
Ariel