Tibbermoresaint Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 It is very easy to look past tenure at Harvard when designating a leading historian. I look at breadth and depth of original research. Ferguson does not score highly in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 ...because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 ....of his lack of original research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Such as his recent work on Henry Kissinger's private papers? His stuff about "Eurabia" and "Chimerica"? He is very influential in the United States. Having a go at him for lack of research and breadth looks a bit dubious to me in terms of being a substitute for the real agenda, which is having a go at him for opposing independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 What is it about what he writes that makes him any different from any other academic in the history departments at Scottish universities? Personally would have thought if anybody deserves the title of Scotland's leading historian it is Niall Ferguson given he is taken seriously globally. Not sure why either's views on independence should rate newpaper columns and TV interviews. Surely Neil Oliver? That hair alone wins it for him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think both versions of that first paragraph, when taken in context with the rest of the article, as they should be for anyone who has an IQ above 70 and is reading The Times, are perfectly accurate statements of what Devine said. And yet one suggests something the other doesn't. As well you know, and as well we all know, altering phrasing can alter the meaning and interpretation readers are invited to interpret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Surely Neil Oliver? That hair alone wins it for him.. The voice that sounds like he's perpetually constipated cancels out the hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 A mate of mine works in the history department of Edinburgh university. When you mention Oliver's name, he bursts out laughing. It's meant to be the universal opinion of him throughout the whole history community in Scotland. I actually don't mind his programmes, they are good background documentaries when I'm cleaning the house, a bit like Rory Mcgrath's pub digs which is on just now. Oh aye, I met Oliver at Edinburgh airport. He's about 5'' tall, he's a feckin midget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 A mate of mine works in the history department of Edinburgh university. When you mention Oliver's name, he bursts out laughing. It's meant to be the universal opinion of him throughout the whole history community in Scotland. I actually don't mind his programmes, they are good background documentaries when I'm cleaning the house, a bit like Rory Mcgrath's pub digs which is on just now. Oh aye, I met Oliver at Edinburgh airport. He's about 5'' tall, he's a feckin midget! Still laugh at him producing a 50+ year old Rangers programme completely out of context on one of his shows. For whose benefit the said article was shown for i'll never know. Maybe a bet like folks in a serious debate that threw in the line from a song. Some say the devil is dead. Strange one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 The article does not say, infer or emphasise anything that is inconsistent with him stating that he would not vote Yes in a future referendum. It was he specifically that said he would not do so, and he specifically who said he would abstain. Those are true statements, regardless of emphasis and the article does not go beyond that. I think both versions of that first paragraph, when taken in context with the rest of the article, as they should be for anyone who has an IQ above 70 and is reading The Times, are perfectly accurate statements of what Devine said. I didn't say the article said he would abstain. I stated that he stated that he would abstain and that the article was consistent with him saying that, both in letter and in spirit. No it doesn't. The first paragraph does not say "Devine has said he will never ever ever vote for independence again because the Nationalists have not answered critical questions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.