Scion
Ummm. Sophistry doesn't count for much, Foolish. Especially when you are well aware of the shortcomings of the book's research, as evinced in the recent thread discussing same.foolish said:Sounds like you just don't like the idea either way - first, because it's unsupported, and then secondly, because it's not inventive. Say what? If it's not supported with enough facts, then it would be - by default - an invention, no? I guess you just can't win with some people.
What I meant is that your content is neither supported by real research nor original in its borrowings of other people's wild, and uncontextualized theorizing. The book is a disorganized hodgepodge of deliberate misunderstandings and the kind of haphazard "soundbites" you denigrate in your post above. Just because something is not supported with facts does not make it inventive; absence of fact makes it facile and false, not creative by any stretch. Plenty of falsehoods are regurgitated by the lazy and inept. That is not to say that you are lazy and inept, but this book, without question, is.
I'm pretty sure you were well aware of what I was saying and why I was saying it. But if that's how you need to process criticism, you should feel free to characterize my comments however you wish.