Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[SabreXray]

BTW Selil, "what you talking about Willis?"

The obvious grammatical effluvia of academic discourse wrapped in the absent specter of Pericles pen shows the dishonesty of the academician. There is only shame for the academic hiding behind bellicose diatribes in obfuscation of honest discourse. An attack on grammar is the last gasp held in an attempt to impoverish intellectual discourse while toiling in the dung heap of “ad hominem” sophistry. In a culture of his vanity and imperiled ideas the social order of the academician is challenged by those who he can only engage in fallacious name calling with because his homilies will not withstand the test of daylight and logic. The academician mistakenly imperils his science while in a stupor of ill-considered ideas he lashes out with the sword of injustice only to be bitten by the poison of his politics.

Attacks on grammar and people is but one thread in the unraveling tapestry of scholarship. There is a presumptive arrogance in hiding behind imprecise and obfuscated language of academia. In attempting to be use $3 words for $1 concepts there is not much to be said other than they have ceded the high ground. English is a living language of emotion and ideas and those are what we should be talking about. Attempting to foil politics while holding up singularly ideas of scholarship baked in the ovens of Popper, Kuhn, Newton ignores that even science is a political process and subject to the scrutiny of the public. Hiding behind large words and citation is a travesty and failure of the academy in its primary role as service to society. It shows an ultimate hubris in the rampant paternalism found in the attacking of other peoples work.

Talk about using $3 words. (Or was that your point?)

JP

[goesh]

Powerful, powerful words here that are putting the finishing touches on the myths and polemics that military folks and military thinkers are dullards, robotic, non-critical thinkers. A large boot is leaving its heavy print in and on the ivory tower without tooth enamel being scattered nor blood splattered, just some mud and fecal matter being kicked onto some deserving faces.

"The obvious grammatical effluvia of academic discourse wrapped in the absent specter of Pericles pen shows the dishonesty of the academician. There is only shame for the academic hiding behind bellicose diatribes in obfuscation of honest discourse. " (Selil)

That's a 3-fingers-of-top-shelf-bourbon phrase if I've ever seen one. Pour it on 'em, by God! don't stop!

[Mktennis]

I agree that his credentials shouldn't be called into question. We shouldn't poison the well here. We should stick to the man's ideas lest we try to assert our points through logical fallacies.

I agree with the last post, and I think that Dr. Price's flaw is that he equates manuals with academic writing. There is a place for both, but rarely should they find themselves on the same playing field. They are apples and oranges; Dr. Price is, apparently, not aware of the necessity of ease of language in manuals. Because he is used to high-fluted language he assumes anything less is a reflection of ability. His assumptions are false.