I don't take this quote as being negative:
"Bill Troop has been very well connected to a lot of people in photography over the years and was heavily engaged with developers at Kodak in Rochester. He accumulated a significant amount of subjective information and has pretty much pushed it all right into this book. It's prefect for the darkroom enthusiast who is intrigued with historic processes and how they might effect ones creative options. Note that this is not an instructional book for beginners but something more targeted at the advanced enthusiast whose interest has grown beyond the use of commonly available processes."
And, having talked with Grant Haist, I find that he feels that Bill has captured their interviews quite well. So, I feel comfortable with the rest of the information myself. I am probably the only person here on APUG that has talked to Haist, James, Dickerson, Zawadski, Glafkides, Henn, Lee, Gilman, Pontius, Willis and a host of others in person about some of these topics.
I would add that seeing two historians battle it out over history is rather stressful, and to me it is, from my perspective, like seeing two modern physicians arguing over a copy of a papyrus contemporary with Ipuwer which gives methods of trepanning. Modern formulas are of more import to me. And, to add to this, I might say that I find that the variations in the Windisch, Crawley and Rodinal formulas that we have seen here may be explained or made necessary by the evolution of film emulsions. I have speculated here that Crawley HA developers may fail with some modern emulsions and I have developed a rather extensive theory as to the reasons. From this, I can reason out improved versions and also may even reason out and try an improved Rodinal.
And this is all while you all fuss over formulas that are 50+ years old. I know you are an archaeologist but there is still much to look to the future and work towards.