-Caveat Lector-
Das Goat's points here I applaud. Like, DG, I have an obvious obcession
against politically correct nonsense. I published three years ago, in the
Washington Times, a long editorial which spoke out against a small, elite
group of Iroquois who were attempting to re-write Iroquoian history. This
was not the entire group of American Indians, I wanna stress, but a small
group whose interests appeared to be primarily their own bandwagons and
staging. Their views were not necessarily the views of most Iroquoians
either. But Iroquois don't usually, out of politeness, counterdict other
Iroquois either. Major points in the "new" history they were pushing in
well-publicized videos and films was utterly unsubstantiated. So much so
their large history curriculum was rejected by the NYS Board of Regents for
having bad information in it, years in a row. Long before the American
public began to understand that their kids were being spoonfed this sort of
rot endlessly for decades -- those in graduate school were being educated
initially by scholars about the horrors of what was coming out of small elite
bands of supposedly well educated academics. No. Nonsense. Having a
critical eye for good scholarship is one of the skills anyone in graduate
school learns. And this is not a skill the public generally has. But the
public NEEDS to get wiser about how to evaluate information. Even tho
someone is published does not mean that they are good at their research or
materials. OR that their expertise is well accepted in the academys. Even
though someone is employed in the academy does not mean that their reputation
is well known or liked by their peers. Top notch scholars are people others
in their respected field can't easily debate essentially, because their
research is so clean, unbiased, and thorough. Written words have NO color to
them and if they eminate biases, then this can be readily debated just like,
say a well investigated law case can be at trial. The facts on paper are the
facts on paper, the facts in the case are the facts in the case. Period.
AND certain academic degrees are considered far HARDER to obtain than other
degrees (education and sociology are not as well respected as anthropology
and linguistics and philosophy, say).
The subjects taught in the academy now are really getting silly and
irresponsible, even at such reknown establishments as Stanford, where
requirements are practially nill. And things like homosexual yearnings may
be offered to sophmores.
Judith
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
