Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:08:32 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
No professional, whatever their profession, "accepts it good practice to accept as valid sloppy, inconclusive date." This is true by definition.
Some do it anyway--but no professional would argue that it is good practice.
Please, let's keep the hyperbolic rhetoric within reasonable bounds?
All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:41:12 -0700
>From: Adrian Zolkover <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Annette Gordon-Reed praised by Edmund Morgan
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Some academics consider it good practice to accept as valid sloppy,
>inconclusive data. Joseph Ellis, regarding Thomas Jefferson and his
>evaluations of Annette Gordon-Reeds writings, is unacceptably sloppy to the
>point of malpractice.
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|