13-02-2011, 06:10 AM
I must note, in a classic FWIW manner, that I'm rather uncomfortable with second-hand use of contemporary arguments to attack the work of a researcher who is available to us for first-hand interaction.
And I'm even less at ease with material being lifted from the EF.
I know, I know: "Second-hand" research is cited regularly in our work. But in this instance it just bugs me. It's like saying, "See, X says Y is a dork, so Y is SUCH a dork!"
I'm familiar with the RC-D argument in question, and I think it's sufficiently sound as to be worthy of reference -- with proper author credit -- here and elsewhere. But again, this sort of approach is terribly unsettling.
And I'm even less at ease with material being lifted from the EF.
I know, I know: "Second-hand" research is cited regularly in our work. But in this instance it just bugs me. It's like saying, "See, X says Y is a dork, so Y is SUCH a dork!"
I'm familiar with the RC-D argument in question, and I think it's sufficiently sound as to be worthy of reference -- with proper author credit -- here and elsewhere. But again, this sort of approach is terribly unsettling.