With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not an answer to my question.  I asked what qualities one must possess for you to acknowledge them as a "serious scholar"  Making reference to a vague consensus of other organizations, none specific, is not sufficient.

That's an interesting reply.  Please delineate the differences in Noam Chomsky and Chirstopher Hitchens that includes the former and excludes the latter.

I've quoted this bit to differentiate it from the copypasta that follows.  These are the last of your own words in this post for some time.This is more copypasta from you without a source link.  You do this quite often.  It's either to pass the words off as your own or to avoid acknowledging a potentially dodgy source.  I've underlined and enlarged a key statement from the copypasta that shows why it is obviously copypasta.

I have to run,  but I'll give a quick response to these points right now.

1. You asked for a list of what qualities one must possess for me to acknowledge him/her a serious scholar etc. I gave you a list of those qualities linked to supporting examples. I do not have "personal" standards for scholarship separate from those currently prevailing in the type of institution to which I referred.  I am not sure why universities and scholarly organizations are "vague" to you. You do not know what universties are, or are you not sure they support scholarly standards? And I didn't just "refer" to them. I explained what the standards are. Here are some specific scholarly organizations for you: The Modern Language Association https://www.mla.org/, The Middle East Scholars Association http://mesana.org/, and the Association for Jewish Studies  http://www.ajsnet.org/mission.htm.  All would agree with my criteria for what scholarship is. If you think not, then specify which along with your evidence.  


You asked for an example of someone I considered a serious scholar. I gave you three examples with links to their published work.

And all this was not "sufficient" for someone given primarily to bald assertion.  Once again you asked a question and got a pretty thorough, well supported reply which treated your question with respect. As usual, you denied that I answered you, threw in personal attack, and took it a step farther this time by insisting that while providing answers, examples, definitions, and criteria I was somehow "stifling debate."

2. One difference would be that Chomsky has spent a lifetime producing scholarship, starting with his work in linguistics. If you studied linguistics, you would have to read Chomsky at some point to understand current problems in the field. Hitchens is a journalist. He has spent a lifetime writing personal essays and journalistic exposes.

I think now it is about time now that you tell me what you mean by "scholar" or "scholarship."  Seems like you can't really keep up or follow my points, so you just keep asking questions and highlighting "copypasta," while I do all the work of defining, explaining, linking examples and the like. Which of Hitchens works would qualify as scholarship and why?

3. If you have a "potentially dodgy source" from which my "quotes" were taken, then show me. That will prove your point. Otherwise your charge "is all opinion, and poorly substantiated" to boot. I just walked you through examples of scholarship, with links to the works and authors referenced. I specified the criteria which make them scholarly. Rather than acknowledge your question sufficiently answered, or disputing the examples of criteria for scholarship, you again turn to personal attack.  Do you think I made up the term "peer-reviewed"?  You assume I cannot, myself, in my own words, explain what peer-reviewed means or how scholarship is related to a "field"? 

I refer to my own post 119 and you even call that "copypasta." My god, WHY DO YOU NEED A LINK TO MY OWN POST IN THIS THREAD????   Copypasta directly from some outside source?  I refer to MY POST 119 in this thread and that is plagiarism??

In general, I would say its time to stop asking me questions and start putting up something yourself besides assertions and personal attack. Highlighting and ENLARGING words does not demonstrate plagiarism anymore than just calling them "copypasta." Is it possible that beyond pointing and asserting, you do not now how to construct arguments based upon textual evidence?  Are you making up plagiarism charges that you cannot prove because you cannot believe that I really know what I demonstrate I know? That's a very bad move for someone who concerned about declaring debates "over" before they begin and "exposing weaknesses" before debate even begins.