-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Author on book tour learns on-air that her work is premised on a misunderstanding
- Thread starter Grifter
- Start date
They could have just published an article on their site and then requested comments.
I don't see how inviting her without telling her they were going to humiliate her live is doing their job. It was basically a trap. It's nasty and sensationalist. It's something more fit for, I don't know, tabloids or reality television shows.
That's like arguing to blame the coach because a receiver dropped a ball. She put her name on that research which means that when she publishes any inaccuracies are on her ultimately.
How unbelievably embarrassing. I think it's weird that no follow-up research on the subjects revealed that they were alive after "Death Recorded" which would have tipped her off to the term being something other than she thought it was, but good on her for handling it well.
Speaking of not doing research:
that wikipedia page was created yesterday, because of this incident.
The genesis of that wikipedia article:
[
How unbelievably embarrassing. I think it's weird that no follow-up research on the subjects revealed that they were alive after "Death Recorded" which would have tipped her off to the term being something other than she thought it was, but good on her for handling it well.
Well yeah i mean her options were raving lunatic who denies everything, mea culpa, or radio silence. I'm sorry but judging by her past i'm not giving her points for admitting she's a terrible researcher.
Her options also included attacking the guy who pointed it out, downplaying it, pretending it didn't matter at all, being sullen or defensive, etc., etc., but she didn't, unlike many other people when confronted with embarrassing mistakes. I might not like her or her work, but I can admit she handled it in a classy way. That's not giving her a pass for bad research.
The full interview exchange is literally linked to in the second sentence of the OP lol
Pretty sure everything you just pointed out would fall under raving lunatic.
It's the BBC - they're paid for by the taxpayer, not clicks or hits. They challenge pretty much everyone/everything.
No idea what she did in her past. She's probably not the brightest licht.
But admitting mistakes is more than a lot of people here are capable of. Always a good thing.
From earlier in the thread...
Strictly speaking, if I'm understanding pardoning correctly, the term is absolutely correct: The death is recorded. It just didn't happen.
In the spirit of 'transfarring', I reckon it means 'Death's trending'
Rule 1 of law school for me - use the commonly applied meaning for words, but never rely on them. Especially in the context that they're from old legislation or case law.
Won't someone please think of the poor author spreading misinformation on facts that you can disprove by googling them?
Won't someone please think of the poor author spreading misinformation on facts that you can disprove by googling them?
To be fair, a vomitorium can be more accurately described that way than "death recorded" can be to say "they died."
Although in a sense they all eventually died, so
OP
OP
Considering her ugly history discussed earlier in the thread, was she really a respected academic?
"Sentence: suspended."
"Hm. That's a strange way to say 'hanged.'"
*writes enormous book*
Yeah that was not the note I thought they were going to leave off on, but damn if it didn't make me wonder about what the book actually said on the topic...
This is a perfect example of right-wing conspiracy theorist, LOL. Their research is as good as this author's.
Lol just read this authors wiki, pretty much every book has been called out for various journalistic sins. It's a wonder the publisher doesn't have an entire team devoted to just fact checking her works.
On this occasion she is a left wing conspiracy theorist sadly. According to the wiki she also started up conspiracy theories around occupy and other shit too.
They start with their desired conclusion and work their way backwards from there.
As I said, totally peripheral and obviously uninformed. She would appear to be not bright at all.
Nah, I like it. Lay out some linguistic traps for researchers.
I wonder if anyone will ever take "I could care less" literally for a book about, idk, spoiler culture in the early 21st century or something.
Linguistic purity only works if you also don't have any evolution in languages over time, which isn't really all that realistic. It's also not predictable, just look at the changing meaning of "gay". How would anyone, say, in the 1970s ever predict it would become synonymous with "male homosexual"?
As for the topic at hand, I can actually see the logic behind "death recorded": it was only recorded, as in, just one for the books. From a modern standpoint, sure, it looks like a really weird way of saying "pardoned". On the other hand I'd say it's also a very weird way of saying someone was executed, because that would usually include the method.
I can't imagine the woman who told Al Gore to wear earth tones to appeal to women would do spmething lazy and stupid.
Don't blame her for not using google on her life's work? Ok
When dealing with historic sources the very first thing you do is to read up on the language it's recorded in. That is the bare minimum to even begin understanding a historic source. Especially when dealing with legal documents.
This isn't some minor mistake. This is a fundamental lack of diligence. If it had been a paper... Eh still bad, but she based the whole thesis of the book on her lack of background research.
