So why did you advocate 'ignoring him', when you now say that not doing so would be a good idea?

Wouldn't that be good?

It really isn't. Things don't go away, or cease to have effects, by ignoring them

Which matters especially in relation to issues (inc re BBC) about 'independence' or 'impartiality': these are actors with a specific motivation (as am I, ofc: but I have always declared that & sought to fairly represent the arguments of anyone I criticise).

... as with similar networks of lawyers, economists, business people etc., these networks are very small & repetitive and, in that sense, can't plausibly regarded as speaking for historians, economists, lawyers, business etc. in the way that might be implied or assumed. 2/3

Absolutely & that's a crucial point. I'm very resistant to CTs generally, and there's certainly no conspiracy here. It is in the open, for one thing. And there's nothing sinister or wrong about like-minded people working together with a common agenda. What's of interest to me is that ... 1/3