On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, John W. Nichols, M.A. wrote:
> (I have been inactive so long that I forgot that I have to "Reply All"
> to get this to go to the list. Sorry for adding to your mail queue,
> Stephen.)
>
> Stephen, you have caught something I have noticed is an increasingly
> common and reprehensible practice, even among those of us who should
> know better.
>
> It seems to me that many with a cause have no shame at all in twisting
> the words of those who are not around (and, of course, those who still
> are) to defend themselves and their words, in the service of their own
> cause. (The "Tell-a-little-lie-for-Jesus" approach, as I call it. I
> have also been known to refer to it as the "Rush Limbaugh Method of
> Arguing".) Many of the old "greats" in our field have been subject to
> such malignment and malevolent reconstruction in recent years. Not only
> are their words twisted, but their motives, methods, ethics and
> morality, etc. are impugned -- anything that will discredit them and
> their ideas. The list is long, but a few examples include Freud, Jung,
> Watson, Adorno, Milgram, and most recently, Zimbardo.
>
> Watch out boys and girls. I know it is hard to believe, but you too
> will someday be a part of history. How will your words be twisted by
> revisionists and reconstructionists?
>
> We can only hope that at least a few persons of integrity, such as
> Stephen, will take the time to check the original source and find out
> what we really said before perpetuating the revisions and
> reconstructions. We had best be sure to to teach our students the value
> of checking primary sources, and hope they teach their students the same
> lesson.
At times it is not what the facts are ,but the hidden agenda as to why
the data is presented. I guess Jensen,Eysenck and the others that follow
the London racist line are scientifically correct.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
