LISTSERV - VA-HIST Archives - LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

	LISTSERV Archives
	VA-HIST Home

	Log In
	Register

	Subscribe or Unsubscribe

	Search Archives

Options:	Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers
Message:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Subject:	Re: Annette Gordon-Reed praised by Edmund Morgan
From:	[log in to unmask]
Reply To:	Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:08:32 -0400
Content-Type:	text/plain
Parts/Attachments:	text/plain (27 lines)

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US