I know you both have stated that you are done with this arguement, I'd just like to add my thoughts.
Basically, it sounds like you two (Arachnophilia and Brian) are basically arguing over the definition of the word "history".
you're dealing with a definition that's too loose
I'd argue that he is not.
Take this for example: The Definition of Music
Music is a broad term. I'm sure we'd all agree that rock/pop is music. Even though we've probably all heard someone talk about a bad song and say "that's not music". Of course it is, they just don't happen to like it. Also, music can be nothing more then silence, as John Cage proved in 1953 with his 4 minute 33 second orchestra piece without a single note (
it's even on UK radio).
So, rather then the actual dictionary definition of music, and we know how wrong dictionary's are with actual definitions from the Athiest vs Agnostic thread; the real definition of music can be nothing other then:
"ANY combination of sounds OR silences that ANYONE considers to be music"
...pretty much as loose as it gets.
This could also be total BS, of course, but I did get this definition from a Music 101 course from the University of Toronto.
What I'm trying to show is that history, like music, is a broad term. I'd be more inclined to believe that your definition is not loose enough rather then Brian's definition being too loose. More importantly for the reason's Brian has discussed rather then my loose analogy.
™ Version 4.2