Sawfish sword

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,
As a rule I do not wish to enter into direct argument with you.


Let me explain: the minute you put your thoughts on paper and publish them, they become a part of the public domain and are opened to discussion and criticism.

I originally gave you high marks only for your descriptive abilities and still maintain this position. Please pay attention: nowhere and never did I praise your discussions of your material or the quality of your conclusions. I discussed it with you both personally and publicly on some Russian Fora about a host of your papers. You preferred not to take my comments into consideration. This was your unquestionablle right, just as it was your choice to advertise your publications here. But then it is my choice and my right to reflect on their quality.

There is no animosity on my part; just an objective peer review. There is nothing personal, it is only business, and it applies to you just the same way it applies to anybody else .

This is how the game of academic publishing is played. Learn the rules and welcome to the arena.

Dear Ariel. It is easy to "play with words" when the majority of the forum participants could not understand that in fact you wrote to me in Russian))))) But now is not even about it. You have studied the article. And I am very happy about it. I look forward to criticism. But only if this criticism on specific issues. Criticism - is first of all check and specific considerations and not the general words. You, dear Ariel, unfortunately, nothing concrete has been said. You just expressed their negative opinion by saying general words.


I'm in my article to make reference to specific historical sources. In September, when the magazine will appear in the press, participants in the forum (which is interested in this topic), be able to read my article and make your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Ian

Serious academic contributions, such as the paper mahratt has brought before us, are important information to our field and deserve our careful consideration. Respectful "rigorous discussion" by critics is actually the ultimate compliment to be paid to the author of such an article, and that is what Ariel has offered. Of course, distinguished academic researchers in unrelated fields can be wrong in their opinions about ethnographic weapons, but Ariel is engaging the author in an objective manner that asks for objective responses.

Ian.

Dear Ian
Could you cite where respected Ariel make: Respectful "rigorous discussion"? Perhaps the phrase on "history of General Tso's Chicken"?
Thank you in advance for your response.

[ariel]

Rick,

The use of comfy chairs and fluffy pillows as torture devices has already been extensively documented by J. Cleese, E Idle et al.