69 million page views

I disagree to Dr. Pipes- on comment (3)

Reader comment on item: The Problem with Middle East Studies

Submitted by Ynnatchkah (United States), Jul 17, 2008 at 09:43

I disagree to Dr. Pipes in the following statement:

"… (3) How to explain that two specialists hostile to my outlook each mangled my words? I see two possibilities: That they did so purposefully; or that bias colored their reading. I doubt they did so intentionally – no one wishes to be caught out and ridiculed for making errors"…

I do NOT doubt they did so on purpose, having taken as a background their traditional bias against experts like Dr. Pipes on the issue who tell the crude truth.

Many of the so called "specialist" are labeled as such by islamists and financial supporters- who aim to smash Dr. Pipes and allies work towards turning upside down the history, adultering it to please Islamists.

They (the two specialists) yes did so intentionally- to the present moment.

But why I do believe on that?

1. If Dr. Pipes would to consider his particular action- as a counter point- like ridicularizing them (By making clear their mistake), it does not necessarily means that they would understand themselves as having made mistakes, or being ridicularized (for what to them the truth holds a different standard), nor either means that those who support them with lies and fatal fallacies understand Dr. Pipes statements as a final ridicularization of these two "specialists".

They may further consider it a way Dr. Pipes would take to cover the idea they thought Dr. Pipes put on the table as a way of denigrating him.

In fact, I even "foresee" Dr. Pipes counter action as an already object of ridicularization by his opponents against him.

2.The fact that Sadowski terminantly refuses to respond to Dr. Pipes and the hostile/imprecise/ infantile answer in (writing and action) given by Halabi, shows me a deeper issue outlined by bad aim.

I prefer to base my judgment upon others concrete answers in action or innaction (especially in this case when Dr. Pipes candidly wanted his point rectified), rather than relying on the old blah, blah that different points exist. It is not a matter of differing in views.

Dr. Pipes words were mangled and when the perpetuators were confronted -they ON PURPOSE- ignored and answered in an unacceptable way to academic standards.

It says for everything. They did not want to put an appendix or a post scriptum or a possible rectification. The possibility simply does not exist to them.

Were they (the specialists) to respond in an adult and civilized way, then the hypothesis of Dr. Pipes would have been totally accepted.

The core of the "short circuit" for to say, is the inaction and the poor feed back given by the "specialists" after Dr. Pipes addressed them. Their answer spoke louder than any supposed good/bad, on purpose or not AIM.

And finally to be honest, I think they do not care a bit about THIS "failure" in the ME studies in America. They get plenty of sleep at night- especially Sadowski. (as seen by some of his writings over the Web).

Please, forgive me for being sincere, as it is my opinion, but the extreme kindness you hold in your soul may be blinding you, Sir Pipes.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)