You know, I think both lines of thought are illuminating in that there is history and then His or Her story.

We always have to remain open to refutation of our most deeply held, and dearest ideas of what was what, how, and when. When facts are viewed solely as facts, and are supportable as facts, they can smash idyllic views of how we really wanted things to be. We want to play up those aspects we like, and agree with and dismiss those that don't appeal, we do it with our current events today. If it reinforces our thinking it is right and true, if it doesn't it can't possibly be true. We have to view history with an unbiased eye, if at all possible, to truly learn, and not repeat it.

That said, that the border families didn't observe clann culture, though true, but maybe not entirely, doesn't mean that they cannot adopt such a culture and it be valid. Were they Clanns in the historical sense of the Highland Families, no, but they adopted the structure for whatever reason and now, at least, speak of a clan culture. Is it romanticist sure, is it less valid because it doesn't have centuries of history behind it no, so long as it is not just lip service.. Can I call my family a clann, add my extended family, and friends, sure. I give them allegiance, I would fight to protect them, I am proud of them. I am proud that I have Scots blood whether my family originated from Kilmarnock, or Butte, or the highest of the Highlands.

So, the trisepts only got three channels as oppossed to extended cable?