Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (17224)	1/27/1998 5:47:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Freddy, I am sure you were just playing with words and images, but of course just to keep the historical record accurate, and the accuracy and logic of my posts beyond question, John-John made the statement, not me. I would assume that he had innumerable serious discussions about his father with his mother, who was very intelligent, and with his uncle Teddy, about his father and his place in history.

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (17224)	1/30/1998 1:20:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Freddy, I am sitting here with Dr. Hakeem's CV that I requested from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Sociology. It is NINE pages long, and of course includes numerous articles and other publications, offices and committee memberships in professional societies, and public service posts and lectures. I would be happy to send it to you, if you want to email me your address, because it is way too long to post here. Dr. Hakeem was born in 1916, and the CV is from 1978. His area of interest within sociology was criminology, incidentally. I know that he and his wife are in very poor health at present, and obviously he is quite old, so the reason search engines produced no articles are simply because they don't go back that far. The Library of Congress, for example, only goes back to 1988 on the net. Of course, someone who complains that Dr. Hakeem is no scholar but has only published ONE article according to the same search engine is in a very poor position to throw stones about scholarship, but I digress!! So do you think we could table the countless, pointless insults about Dr. Hakeem's career as a scholar which emanate from the peanut gallery? He is obviously writing outside of his area of interest, a fact with which I would not disagree, but I see no reason to use this to discredit his arguments in general. If you want to dispute the facts brought forward in the articles on religion and history the esteemed Doctor wrote, that would of course still be acceptable. Say, Freddy, isn't that an AD HOMINEM argument of sorts, anyway? <<);^)