There's nothing wrong with scholarship; it is a worthwhile activity. Andries is 100% right not to accept our claims at face value--that's just common garden objectivity. It's obvious that exes have a big emotional investment in our claims. (Look, I know we're telling the truth, but why should an outsider?) Personally, I share his suspicion of black and white thinking--the situation is always more complex than it is presented, but the conclusion achieved through careful weighing of evidence is the one that lasts.
Of course there's nothing wrong with scholarship. I never said there was. There is something wrong, however, with NRM scholarship as far as I can tell. The field has been overwhelmed, it appears, by apologists. How else can you explain the reaction I got from the editor of the NRM journal who feigned concern for basic academic principles like disclosure of conflicts of interest but had no interest whatsoever for addressing the fact that Geaves clearly tricked his colleagues wholesale? And that's just one example. Andries, bless his heart, keeps giving us more. 
And what the hell is this "black and white thinking" first Andries, now you, are talking about? That just sounds like an empty insult, frankly. You got something to fill it an and make it worth consideration at least?
Also, I agree that there should be some measure of healthy skepticism in any field regarding anyone's claims to anything. But do you honestly think that that's what Andries brings here? I don't. I think that our combined, complementary accounts of events, supported as they are by the documentary evidence, should leave any fair-minded observer satsified of our accuracy and truthfulness. You're making it sound as if I, an "activist" (sure, why not?) am willing to bend truths and minimize or exaggerate to achieve some goal. Examples, please!
What I see here is the clash between the viewpoint of a committed activist, and that of an academic--two spheres that operate by different criteria. Scholarship must necessarily develop in slow--even hesitant--increments. If you want to become an academic scholar of NRMs then go ahead--find the objective data, present the counter-arguments, show how the field is founded on erroneous thinking--I'll cheer you on. If you're not prepared to do this you have no business criticising.
Oh sorry, I started responding to that part a little early. Anyway, I think it's clearly wrong to suggest that I have to become one myself to criticize NRM scholars individually or the field altogether. It's hardly rocket science, Neville. There's no esoteric knowledge or jargon needed to see what they're doing and how well. You're completely off base on this one, in my opinion.
We're used to criticism from premies, but Andries gives us a insight into how exes may be viewed by complete outsiders--those who can't begin to share our breadth of experience but have the difficult task of summarising it sufficiently to achieve historical conclusions. These may be the people who will judge us all--exes and premies--in the end. What we consider unassailable evidence Andries sees as less certain. That's useful. Actually, it's invaluable. I bet if the Levellers or the Luddites saw what historians write about them they'd get indignant too. Getting petulant because Andries doesn't swallow our testimonies whole--now, that is a waste of time.
Again, I disagree. I, like you, have had our share of conversations with outsiders over time. Only the NRM scholars and now wannabe Andries have been so obstinant in accepting and understanding the simple, gross, ugly and absurd facts of this cult after hearing the story as much as they have. And it's not even as if it's rational. I know because I've tried so many times to meet Andries eye-to-eye rationally and I alwasy get the feeling he's kind of looking down a bit to the right.
So there!
Like I said, I'm sure Andries means well. I sure don't hate or dislike the guy. I just find his take irritating, that's all. I've explained why.
