Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Guest James H. Fetzer

ISIS trips, stumbles, and falls

Recommended Posts

Evan

Have you actually seen the review?

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have stated several times, I believe in the Holocaust, but restrictions against research about it are

absurd. If it was real, as I believe, then serious research will substantiate it; and it if was not, then we

are all entitled to know. But I certainly agree that one or the other of us has lost his moral compass.

I discuss many books on "The Real Deal", including STRANGER THAN FICTION, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION,

WHAT I SAW THAT DAY, some of which reflect adversely upon Zionism and its practitioners. That does

not mean I have "a Hitlerian take on early 20th century history". So now you are a 20th C. historian?

As for a military coup, I said at a presentation in early June 2006 that it would not surprise me were

something like that to occur. That is not the same as an endorsement. Bush grossly violated the US

Constitution, however, where, I am sorry to say, Obama is following suit. Sad days for the US of A!

Suspended for discussing 9/11 issues on a thread in which I was being attacked for my views about

9/11? That's a pretty serious offense, Len. I won't say you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel,

because you have long since exceeded that. You are grasping after straws without a lot of success.

We know all about my suspension. I had a relationship with a member of the staff who was also

married which my wife regarded as "inappropriate". She was the Chancellor's closest friend and,

when we had a falling out, the Chancellor hung me out to dry. But you already know all of this.

Yes, I was tweaking Tink, who had an admitted history of involvement with undergraduates when

he taught at Haverford, which most faculty, including me, regard as unprofessional and deplorable.

It was a rather innocuous relationship, as these things go, and I paid for it in many different ways.

Since displaying respect for others is the essence of morality, which you are manifestly not doing

here but exaggerating and recycling old news, none of which has anything to do with the issues at

stake here, I can see that you and Swerdlow inhabit the same moral universe. No surprise there!

Sorry Fetzer,

Based on the only independent account of the event you endorsed a coup.

You were suspended for here for making personal attacks

You were not honest about the relationship that got you suspended because you claimed it was sexual then denied it, therefore no one has any reason to believe what you say about the matter.

Stranger Than Fiction is obviously anti-Semitic as well as anti-Zionist and despicably blamed Jews for the rise of Hitler and Holocaust etc. Yet that didn’t stop you from giving it your wholeheartedly endorsing it and reading it on air. Since the anonymous author cited virtually no sources one has to assume his claims coincided with your beliefs. Speaking of which you have yet to explain why you are “inclined to believe the numbers killed [in the Holocaust] have been exaggerated”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan

Have you actually seen the review?

Yep.

Can you post some applicable excerpts here? Fetzer is unwilling to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

You really are grasping after straws. You distort everything to the max in your apparent assignment to

try to find something you can use to smear me. Sorry about that! My presentation in early June 2006

is available on-line, so we can all listen to what I have to say. I was explaining that it would not have

surprised me had something like that taken place then because the officer corps has a greater degree

of commitment to the Constitution than did Cheney and Bush. Here's a link for your viewing pleasure:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-86777198889612837&q=Jim+Fetzer%2C+Chicago&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

You are really some piece of work, Colby. I have addressed these issues before, yet to still try to come

up with something--it could be ANYTHING!--to make mountains out of molehills. I call 'em as I see

'em and sometimes nail my critics in way that makes they cry out for help! Because you claim that I

"endorsed a coup" and that that is "the only independent account" WHEN A VIDEO IS AVAILABLE, why

should we ever believe anything you say about me? The answer is obvious: no one should believe you.

That book--and others I have cited or discussed on the air--seems to me to provide a concise and in-

deed historically accurate account of the subjects it addresses. But I am no more an historian of the

early half of the 20th C than are you! You made a claim that one account was similar to another and

I made the logical point that, just because they are consistent does not make them wrong! Marx, for

example, endorsed universal suffrage and public education, but that also does not make them wrong.

It seems to me that you have trouble thinking things through. You are so inept at research that you

do not even know of the existence of a video of the presentation you are pretending to discuss. You

exaggerate the circumstances of my suspension on the forum, which was trivial, and the incident at

UMD, which was not. But when I have already explained these things and you know that I have done

that already, the only explanation for your continuing to recycle them is the obvious one of a smear.

And the fact that an author's views about the origins of WWI and WWII conflicts with yours does not

make yours right and his wrong! I really find it disappointing that you are struggling so hard with so

little to work with. Anyone who wants to listen to my discussions of those books--STRANGER THAN

FICTION, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, and WHAT I SAW THAT DAY--should visit the archives for my

"The Real Deal", which can be accessed at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. They are very interesting.

As I have stated several times, I believe in the Holocaust, but restrictions against research about it are

absurd. If it was real, as I believe, then serious research will substantiate it; and it if was not, then we

are all entitled to know. But I certainly agree that one or the other of us has lost his moral compass.

I discuss many books on "The Real Deal", including STRANGER THAN FICTION, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION,

WHAT I SAW THAT DAY, some of which reflect adversely upon Zionism and its practitioners. That does

not mean I have "a Hitlerian take on early 20th century history". So now you are a 20th C. historian?

As for a military coup, I said at a presentation in early June 2006 that it would not surprise me were

something like that to occur. That is not the same as an endorsement. Bush grossly violated the US

Constitution, however, where, I am sorry to say, Obama is following suit. Sad days for the US of A!

Suspended for discussing 9/11 issues on a thread in which I was being attacked for my views about

9/11? That's a pretty serious offense, Len. I won't say you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel,

because you have long since exceeded that. You are grasping after straws without a lot of success.

We know all about my suspension. I had a relationship with a member of the staff who was also

married which my wife regarded as "inappropriate". She was the Chancellor's closest friend and,

when we had a falling out, the Chancellor hung me out to dry. But you already know all of this.

Yes, I was tweaking Tink, who had an admitted history of involvement with undergraduates when

he taught at Haverford, which most faculty, including me, regard as unprofessional and deplorable.

It was a rather innocuous relationship, as these things go, and I paid for it in many different ways.

Since displaying respect for others is the essence of morality, which you are manifestly not doing

here but exaggerating and recycling old news, none of which has anything to do with the issues at

stake here, I can see that you and Swerdlow inhabit the same moral universe. No surprise there!

Sorry Fetzer,

Based on the only independent account of the event you endorsed a coup.

You were suspended for here for making personal attacks

You were not honest about the relationship that got you suspended because you claimed it was sexual then denied it, therefore no one has any reason to believe what you say about the matter.

Stranger Than Fiction is obviously anti-Semitic as well as anti-Zionist and despicably blamed Jews for the rise of Hitler and Holocaust etc. Yet that didn’t stop you from giving it your wholeheartedly endorsing it and reading it on air. Since the anonymous author cited virtually no sources one has to assume his claims coincided with your beliefs. Speaking of which you have yet to explain why you are “inclined to believe the numbers killed [in the Holocaust] have been exaggerated”

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Hockey (Editor). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. 2 volumes.

xlv + 1,341pp., illus., bibl., indexes. New York: Springer, 2007. $499 (cloth).

I would not purchase this book. This is not intended as a judgment of its overall quality, but there are reasons for my decision, which I shall explain at the end of this review. As should be evident from the price, The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers is a reference book for libraries. According to the publisher's description, there are approximately 1,550 biographical sketches of from one hundred to fifteen hundred words by about four hundred authors from forty different countries. The object is to present summaries of the life and work of astronomers, and others pertinent to astronomy, with selected references to more detailed sources. The technical level is fairly low, with mathematical formulas in only three articles that I have noticed and no diagrams at all, although it is difficult to clarify subjects such as planetary and lunar theory without diagrams. Still, even with these limitations, many of the authors do a good job of explaining the astronomy. There are pictures of some people, including Archimedes and Ptolemy, but not Einstein or Hubble; I do not understand the criterion for selection. Now, the value of a collection of this kind lies, not in the more important figures, for whom summary biographies are readily available, but in the lesser known, who have been treated, if at all, only in specialized literature and the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DSB). And for this purpose the work is indeed useful, although there is considerable variation in quality, from excellent to deficient. Let me begin with what appears to me the best.

The articles on Islamic astronomers are uniformly excellent. From the eighth to the fifteenth centuries the most important and original astronomy—observational, mathematical, and physical—was from the Islamic world, and it is commendable that this is here fully recognized. Those astronomers translated into Latin and known in Europe—for example, al-Battanı, Thabit ibn Qurra, Jabir ibn Aflah—are treated, as are those often called the "Maragha school"—as Nasır ad-Dın at-Tusı, Muayyad ad-Dın al-Urdı, Ibn ash-Shatir—whose planetary and lunar theories, as well as being of great interest in themselves, were essential to Copernicus and through his work to European astronomy of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (Curiously, the article on Copernicus ignores this entirely.) Equally important are many astronomers, among the most important Ibn Yunus and al-Bırunı, whose work was unknown in the West until the historical research of the modern period, and they too are given thorough treatment. The authors include some of the finest scholars of Arabic astronomy and mathematics, and many articles supplement or supersede those in the DSB and the Encyclopedia of Islam, since there has been so much original research in the last thirty or so years. It is particularly fortunate that through an arrangement between the publisher and the Islamic Scientific Manuscript Initiative (ISMI), all of these articles are available in open access at http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/.

Probably the most often consulted articles will be those on astronomers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many not in the DSB, which make up well over half of the entire work and are among the best. The coverage is wide, taking in not only Western Europe and North America but also Russia, Japan, India, Latin America, and other regions considered only slightly in previous English-language reference works; and it is very current, since people born up to 1918, some still living, are included. Likewise, the articles treat contributors to every field of astronomy in the modern period: observation and instruments, celestial mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, planets and comets, stellar structure and evolution, distribution of stars in the galaxy, external galaxies, cosmology, and also other scientists, as physicists, whose work is pertinent to these fields. Where the work is highly technical, it sometimes appears as though the authors could do more to explain it, but most of the articles are better than that, many are excellent, and can be considered reliable. Here above all the collection shows its great value.

The problems are with earlier periods: antiquity, the Middle Ages except for Islamic astronomy, the Renaissance, and the early modern period. With a few exceptions, the articles on antiquity are uninformative. There is little that can be written of biography, so what remains is the work, but, again with a few exceptions, the authors do not really understand the astronomy, certainly not technically, and at best summarize some of the less technical secondary literature.

Many articles are devoted to Greek philosophers whose contribution to astronomy, if any, is so trivial and doubtful that there appears to be no reason to include them at all. The same is true of some, though not all, of the articles on the European Middle Ages: accounts of works that can seriously be called astronomical, as tables with their instructions and descriptions of instruments, are of uneven quality, and theologians and philosophers whose contribution to astronomy was little or nothing receive more attention than is warranted. The greatest disappointment, however, concerns the Renaissance and early modern periods. There are many articles considering both major and minor figures, although the selection is peculiar: some of serious interest, as Giovanni Bianchini and Francois Viete, are omitted, while John Milton is included (because of some Copernican references in Paradise Lost). Some of the articles are excellent, but some are dreadful: inaccurate, even nonsensical descriptions of the astronomy; citations of texts that have never been looked at, let alone read; inability to understand the astronomy or read the language, most often Latin, of the primary sources, or even to read and understand the secondary sources cited as references; and omissions in the references of important and serious secondary sources. It would be unkind to single out examples, but the deficiencies are obvious and such articles should have been rejected and replacements commissioned. The presence of bad articles makes one suspicious of good ones, and unfairly so; it is in the interest of the authors who have done their job well not to be accompanied by those who have not. Since the entire work is available on line by subscription, it should be possible over time to replace the deficient articles with improved versions, and it is to be hoped that the publisher will do so. This can also remedy the problem that I believe precludes purchasing the book, to which we now turn.

There are three articles—on Newton no less, Flamsteed, and J. C. Adams—by one Nicholas Kollerstrom. The articles themselves are not distinguished: the one on Newton gives him credit for practically nothing, an interpretation with little to recommend it already done to death in the contentious literature on Newton, and all three look for conspiracies. Kollerstrom is an astrologer who publishes an annual volume called Gardening and Planting by the Moon and also investigates horoscopes of famous people, including Newton and Princess Diana. (In 2003 I corresponded with him about Galileo's horoscopes, although he did not then mention that he was an astrologer and it did not occur to me to ask.) But he has another specialty for which he has become better known. His tirades—the correct word—are available on numerous Web sites, both in audio and video interviews and in his own articles, among them "The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion" and the inimitable "School Trips to Auschwitz." I will not quote or summarize them here—I originally did but decided they are too offensive to repeat—but note that he defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating Web sites, which return the compliment by posting his articles. He also holds that 9/11 in the United States and 7/7 in Britain were the work of "international Zionism" aided by the CIA, MI6, and Mossad, with clandestine conspiracies to explain all of this (as well as the death of Princess Diana). And to show his bona fides, in answer to a reporter who said he had a degree in astronomy, he writes: "I have a PhD in the history of astronomy—that could be rather relevant to the 7/7 research, because as a science historian my training involves the accessing of primary-source data and not relying upon gossip and hearsay."

Now, the editors of this volume could have had no way of knowing this side of Kollerstrom because he had not yet published these papers when he was asked to write his articles; and his honorary research fellowship at University College London was not terminated until 22 April 2008. It appears that in the last several years his interests have gone from eccentric to unspeakable. But I would not for all that excuse his inclusion, for a line has been crossed that should never be crossed. This is why I would not purchase this book. It is my intention to return the book to the publisher, and I hope that others, including libraries, do the same. I suggest that Springer withdraw the book from distribution until the deficient articles, and particularly Kollerstrom's, are replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are grasping after straws. You distort everything to the max in your apparent assignment to try to find something you can use to smear me. Sorry about that! My presentation in early June 2006 is available on-line, so we can all listen to what I have to say. I was explaining that it would not have surprised me had something like that taken place then because the officer corps has a greater degree of commitment to the Constitution than did Cheney and Bush. Here's a link for your viewing pleasure:

The video you posted does NOT include the question and answer session which is when you made the comments in question and you know this. Back then (in 2006) AFTER the linked video was released you wrote, “A recording of the question session is not yet available, to the best of my knowledge, the perfect opportunity for a smear!” So are you very confused or were you trying to pull a fast one?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2656&view=findpost&p=66146

Here is the only independent account of what you said:

"The threat we face," he said, is "imminent and ominous." He recommended arming the citizenry.

During the question-and-answer session, an audience member asked whether there might be a way to capture a TV station, to get the word out about September 11. Mr. Fetzer upped the ante on the idea.

"Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors," he said from the podium.

"Yeah!" shouted some men in the audience.

"There actually was one weekend," Mr. Fetzer went on, "where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains."

His voice was building. "Listen to me," he said. "The degree of perfidy involved here is so great, that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in the middle of the night and ripped them to shreds!"

"Yeah!" cried a chorus of voices in the audience. "Yeah!"

http://web.archive.org/web/20060630113918/http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j2dll9sp4mf4rtkp62dhg6yxsm3jt43c

The author failed to mention some of the worst nuttery from your presentation, starting at 47:30 you started ranting about the government intentionally infecting D.R. Griffin, Steve Jones, Alex Jones & you with bird flu and suggested an armed revolt by the citizens “augmented by mercenary forces”, at 50:15 you predicted the Mossad would stage a false flag attack on the “English World Cup squad” based on a tip from a supposed Army Coronel and said the likely date would be June 6, 2006 because it would be 6/6/06 i.e. 666 and indeed at 53:25 you endorsed “arming the population” then at 55:00 in obvious reference to Martin Niemöller: ("First they came for the Socialists...") you predicted “they’re going to go after the militias…[with] helicopter gunships…after the militants they’re gonna come after 9/11 skeptics, we know too much…war critics…the Greens, the progressives…” So rather than write a hit piece the author let you off easy, perhaps he took pity on you or perhaps his editor limited the length of the article.

You are really some piece of work, Colby. I have addressed these issues before, yet to still try to come up with something--it could be ANYTHING!--to make mountains out of molehills. I call 'em as I see 'em and sometimes nail my critics in way that makes they cry out for help!

LOL your delusions of grandeur are kicking in again. You are better at insulting that besting your opponents with facts and logic.

Because you claim that I "endorsed a coup" and that that is "the only independent account" WHEN A VIDEO IS AVAILABLE, why should we ever believe anything you say about me? The answer is obvious: no one should believe you.

As noted above the video does NOT include your coup comments but you falsely claim it does. So “why should we ever believe anything you say about [yourself]? The answer is obvious…”

That book--and others I have cited or discussed on the air--seems to me to provide a concise and indeed historically accurate account of the subjects it addresses. But I am no more an historian of the early half of the 20th C than are you!

The self-published anonymously authored book cited almost no sources and I’ve seen no evidence you made any effort to verify the ones it did, since you admit not to know much about the subject how would you know if is “historically accurate” or not?

You made a claim that one account was similar to another and I made the logical point that, just because they are consistent does not make them wrong! Marx, for example, endorsed universal suffrage and public education, but that also does not make them wrong.

So you are equating Hitler and Marx? Sorry but the latter did not preach racism, carry-out mass murder of millions and trigger a war which killed even more people. But to a limited extent you have a point, Hitler advocated better highways and more affordable cars and rightly complained that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust. Stranger than Fiction however blamed the Jews for both world wars other events of the early to mid-20th century and even justified Hitler’s persecution of Jews and invasions of his neighbors and disgustingly those were the parts of the book you read on air and enthusiastically endorsed.

"It seems to me that you have trouble thinking things through. You are so inept at research that you do not even know of the existence of a video of the presentation you are pretending to discuss".

Your continuously fall into projection. If my not knowing about a video of you speaking would have made me “inept at research” what does you claiming it includes you making a comment which it doesn’t make you? Especially since you already told us it didn’t include the comment.

"You exaggerate the circumstances of my suspension on the forum, which was trivial, and the incident at UMD, which was not. But when I have already explained these things and you know that I have done that already, the only explanation for your continuing to recycle them is the obvious one of a smear."

Your suspension here was hardly “trivial”, besides Lifton and you I don’t know of anyone here having their posting privileges suspended (as opposed to being put on moderation). Far from exaggeration I didn’t mention you were suspended from UM-D withOUT pay mid-semester, I don’t suppose that happens very often especially to tenured profs. How many similar cases can you point to?

"And the fact that an author's views about the origins of WWI and WWII conflicts with yours does not make yours right and his wrong!"

I posted my analysis on the first thread, you failed you reply. Evan locked it so I invited you reply on the 2nd and 3rd ones you failed to reply on them as well. You can do so here if you wish or you could ask the mods to reopen the first.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16296

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=199764

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16026&view=findpost&p=200049

"I really find it disappointing that you are struggling so hard with so little to work with. Anyone who wants to listen to my discussions of those books--STRANGER THAN FICTION, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, and WHAT I SAW THAT DAY--should visit the archives for my "The Real Deal", which can be accessed at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. They are very interesting."

For once we agree, I don’t know about the latter two but your endorsement of the former is a clear sign of your moral bankruptcy, it’s quite ‘interesting’!

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the review Evan. Though Fetzer has a point, Swerdlow should not have focused so much on Kollerstom's views, but his review of the review is highly distorted. It falsely created the impression the only reason Swerdlow gave the book a negative review were Kollerstrom's contributions and the impression he only rejected those contributions was the authors views. No wonder he failed to post any excerpts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

There are 1,550 entries with 430 contributors. There was an Editor-in-Chief and six associate editors.

They could have selected anyone they preferred to write on Newton. They chose Nicholas Kollerstrom.

Biographies of astronomers are not controversial subjects. Swerdlow has offered no good reasons for

libraries NOT TO PURCHASE THE BOOK much less HAVING IT PULPED! You really haven't given

this a lot of thought, Len. The volume appears to be highly meritorious and was published by one of

the world's leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, Springer. No serious

academician or intellectual would doubt that Swerdlow was grossly abusing his role as a reviewer!

Thanks for posting the review Evan. Though Fetzer has a point, Swerdlow should not have focused so much on Kollerstom's views, but his review of the review is highly distorted. It falsely created the impression the only reason Swerdlow gave the book a negative review were Kollerstrom's contributions and the impression he only rejected those contributions was the authors views. No wonder he failed to post any excerpts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You failed to inform you readers he thought there were several other problems with the volume and that he said there were other problems with Kollerstrom's contributions. Despite your claims to the contrary Swerendon did not distort the facts say Kollerstrom was anti-Semitic or fail to inform his readers your friend had a doctorate in the history of astronomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

That Swerdlow was abusing his position is obvious. If he were posting about the book on this forum, for example, the ever-diligent moderators would have rendered his review invisible or otherwise reprimanded him, since Nick's interest in research on the Holocaust has nothing to do with his entries in this biographical encyclopedia.

Moreover, you are in no position to judge whether or not Nick's entries were competent--but the Editor-in-Chief and the six associates editors most certainly were! Do you think his entries were published without their review and approval? This is one of those cases where your inability to think things through is conspicuous--even glaring!

You failed to inform you readers he thought there were several other problems with the volume and that he said there were other problems with Kollerstrom's contributions. Despite your claims to the contrary Swerendon did not distort the facts say Kollerstrom was anti-Semitic or fail to inform his readers your friend had a doctorate in the history of astronomy.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Swerdlow was abusing his position is obvious. If he were posting about the book on this forum, for example, the ever-diligent moderators would have rendered his review invisible or otherwise reprimanded him, since Nick's interest in research on the Holocaust has nothing to do with his entries in this biographical encyclopedia.

One could argue that it fit a pattern since Swerdlow claimed "all three [of Kollerstrom's enteries] look for conspiracies."

Moreover, you are in no position to judge whether or not Nick's entries were competent

I never made such a judgement, try reading for comprehension. But you omitting that Swerdlow said there were other problems with the volume and Kollerstrom's entries gave the false impression his Holocaust denial was the only reason the review panned the book.

--but the Editor-in-Chief and the six associates editors most certainly were! Do you think his entries were published without their review and approval?

By your 'logic' then all entries/chapters in all multi-author books must be worthy because they were approved by editors. There is no need then to review such works. But why stop there? All books except self-published ones were approved by an editor.

This is one of those cases where your inability to think things through is conspicuous--even glaring!

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a special kind of book, a reference work on biographies of astronomers. If you had experience in academia or other serious intellectual fields, you would know that editors are involved in publications like this one to an even greater degree than in the case of ordinary multi-authored works, such as edited collections. I am sorry, Len, but you really are out of your depth here. There is no good reason to have any doubt about the editors confidence in Nick to author some of the most important entries in the entire encyclopedia. Once again, you have shown that you just don't know what you are talking about.

That Swerdlow was abusing his position is obvious. If he were posting about the book on this forum, for example, the ever-diligent moderators would have rendered his review invisible or otherwise reprimanded him, since Nick's interest in research on the Holocaust has nothing to do with his entries in this biographical encyclopedia.

One could argue that it fit a pattern since Swerdlow claimed "all three [of Kollerstrom's enteries] look for conspiracies."

Moreover, you are in no position to judge whether or not Nick's entries were competent

I never made such a judgement, try reading for comprehension. But you omitting that Swerdlow said there were other problems with the volume and Kollerstrom's entries gave the false impression his Holocaust denial was the only reason the review panned the book.

--but the Editor-in-Chief and the six associates editors most certainly were! Do you think his entries were published without their review and approval?

By your 'logic' then all entries/chapters in all multi-author books must be worthy because they were approved by editors. There is no need then to review such works. But why stop there? All books except self-published ones were approved by an editor.

This is one of those cases where your inability to think things through is conspicuous--even glaring!

LOL

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tout your pedestrian academic career as much as you want, it won't change the fact that your review of the review of the review was misleading. You made it seem as if Swerdlow's only objected to Kollerstrom's entries and only objected to them because he is a holocaust denier neither of which is the case. You claimed that your friend did NOT portray Auschwitz as an amenable place when he clearly did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×