Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Vote in the Poll!


Who does Kevin Levin love bashing the most? There are no right and wrong answers -- this is an opinion poll only. (More commentary to come later... I'm busy right now.)


  1. ROFLOL!!!! What a scream! Thanks for the laugh, buddy!

  2. Constant Belcher ? The name says it all!

  3. Arrogance is worse than ignorance, because ignorance can be cured by knowledge. There's not much that will cure arrogance, once somebody's infected with it to the degree that Levin is....

  4. It remains obvious you are confusing your diagnosis with the one he doesn't have.

  5. Oh, yes, Robert, he's arrogant. You're too caught up in hero worship to see it. And you're young. When you get some years on you, and some life experience, you'll be better able to discern such things.

  6. Seriously Connie? I don't hero worship. If I ever saw an immediate flaw in his statements, I am the one of the first to question. If you poke around long enough on his blog you will see that. But I can tell you as a Historian (someone with a degree that has been trained to use the materials instead of just make random claims with one document) that he is right the majority of the time.

  7. Robert, having a degree proves nothing, and "trained to use the material" can, and frequently does, means little more that being indoctrinated with authoritarianism....

  8. Thank you for proving my point Connie. Trained to use the material means I have been taught the different approaches and methodology of which to effectively make objective decisions about given sources. Yours consists of league of the south notions and yet you say I am indoctrinated. Can you be any more dense?

  9. Well, they sure didn't teach you grammar and composition, did they? Should be: "'Trained to use the material' means I have been taught the different approaches and methodology WITH which to effectively make objective decisions about given sources."

    The same thing can be accomplished with common sense, Robert.

    I didn't prove your point. Your point has not been proven. Just because you've been taught something doesn't necessarily mean (1) you learned it or (2) that what you were taught is correct.

    You were indoctrinated with what's fashionable in the state of the academic world right now, that's all.

    What League of the South notions, Robert? Identify them.

    You are indoctrinated, because you exhibit the chief characteristic of an indoctrinee -- close-mindedness.

  10. Actually the same thing cannot be accomplished with common sense. If that were true, you and DeWitt would present good historical arguments...unless you are willing to admit you have no common sense.

    I love how you refer to indoctrination constantly though to alienate those that actually know what they are doing with the source material. It provides people with their own little category. Can't say I fret about it.

    You accuse me of closemindedness though, while continually reverting back to your old catch all clause that you are just as much as a historian as anyone. Please. You can deny others all you want but yes, a degree means something. I'm not going to go to a car dealer for medical advice. I'm not going to seek out a plumber to find out the molecular structure and mutation of evolution. I am going to go to someone with a degree in that field. Why? Because that is the start. I can use them to navigate through to the answer. They can provide me with the simple explanation as well as resource material that can be used to research.

    Those are the steps you commonly miss. You jump to the material without the grasp, context, schema, or realization of proper historical methodology; which is needed in order to form accurate, rational, reasonable and logical decisions.

    You say indoctrinated? I saw, you're a laughing stock of anyone that actually studies.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.