[kerev989]

> The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural mores being projected on people with different values...

It's not about projecting cultural values. It's about a supposedly trustworthy publication that published rubbish. The author of the article doesn't know basic things about the life of the people they are discussing.

[tres]

I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.

I'm sorry that it seems to be so problematic.

This piece seems interesting and illuminating regarding a specific aspect of a culture that we are thousands of years removed from. It's a pop-piece, meant to be approachable and to stir the curiosity of the reader.

I can't imagine how many different ways it probably gets things wrong... and I guess that in itself is interesting to think about... but because it's impure does it mean that it has no value?

Is anything with a hint of inaccuracy (according to our own perspective and understanding) deigned unworthy of inclusion and distribution?

Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?

[kerev989]

> I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.

Yes. Because there is nothing esoteric about knowing how people dressed if you are going to talk about their lives.

> Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?

No. Just honest and at least slightly competent.

[tres]

Well, it seems revealing that we're discussing togas and not sponges on sticks. I'd wager that's because earlier statements made in this thread regarding the universal, unequivocal truth that no one used shared sponges on sticks may not necessarily be so easy to defend.

Judgements of competence and honesty are subjective; we can all fail to distribute them fairly (especially when it comes to ourselves).

Rarely, when it comes to a history of an entire culture that spans hundreds of years and thousands of miles, can we find one perspective that describes a universal "truth."

All we have are shades of approximation.

That doesn't mean that there's no value in that approximation, it just means that we have to be a little patient with each other while each of our generalizations don't necessarily conform to the ineffable complexity of such a large group of people over such a large area over such a large timespan.

"Perfect is the enemy of good."