Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As expected you start off with an attack.
>
> Actually, it was a description. Hackery is as hackery
> does. Since you questioned my qualifications and made
> a statement about Keegan's, to put it mildly, you
> earned it. Since you so proudly opine on these issues
> and call into question the abilities of one of the
> world's foremost military historians and mine - and
> I'm a professional in this field too, by the way - I
> think I'm justified in asking where you get off doing
> so. What are yours, exactly? If Keegan's lack of
> military service disqualifies him, what was yours,
> exactly? What training in security studies, military
> history, strategic theory, or international security
> do you have, exactly that make you qualified to do that?
Geez, if you're going to go on about who's qualified to say what, could
you do it without characterizations, positive OR negative, and just
explain the qualifications?
Your calling someone a "hack" or equally insulting term brings you down
a notch in my eyes.
If someone calls you a "hack" or something else negative, rebut them on
merits alone, without further name-calling. Or you end up looking like
some blusterer who doesn't have the *real* goods to back yourself up.
(That goes for other participants in this discussion, as well. Sheesh.
Can we dial down the testosterone and pissing-contest stuff a notch or
two, guys?)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
