VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

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 >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Adrian Zolkover <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:23:09 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
As you are parsing words, my original statement 9/26/08 12:08 AM was "Some 
academics consider it good practice to accept as valid sloppy, inconclusive 
data."  I didn't write "accepts it good practice to accept as valid ..." 
This might imply per Webster's, agreement that it is good practice. I think 
many "professionals" really practice their craft more as con men; and they 
consider this OK, if they accept this within their own group, kind of like 
agreement among thieves (as I think many of those lecturing and writing 
about Thomas Jefferson have done). However, they would not like it if their 
medical doctors used this standard of performance treating them; and would 
not agree this is an acceptable standard of performance.

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Annette Gordon-Reed praised by Edmund Morgan


> 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 

______________________________________
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