This is exactly why I "had chills" in my first post.
I knew Chris would respond and the thread would reach this point. I think Schaap is silly and has become "important" because of his work and position. I do think he's probably "nuts". I think Chris is more reliable as a historian, but there is probably something else going on here.
I don't want to hear any more about this. Please.
In other contexts we all accept "assholes and charlatans" as influences and mentors.
Thank god for Herman Lubinsky.