Actually, no way. Totally boosts your cred in the “mainstream,” which can come in handy. It’s harder to say someone is a beyond-the-pale radical when you’re citing their work when it suits you..
On the contrary and I completely endorse what Craig says.
One cannot simply cherry pick sources. It is a sign of moral and intellectual bankruptcy when you see that done. If Freedom House consider you an authority when it them, then they cannot turn round and trash you when it doesn’t. They can of course disagree with you, but then that means that they must engage with you.
Of course trashing you or more likely ignoring you is what they will do. However they have now given you the most powerful argument it is possible to have.
Incidentally, you may care to reflect on the fact that they (and by extension the US government) are following this blog. I wonder who else is?
Comments were closed on your open forum so I decided to just post it here.
Polish documentary Letter from Poland that aired in Holland questioning whether Russia had a hand or/and is covering up what happened to the presidential plane crash.
No…but getting cited in a rant resulting from someone doing research rabbit hole digging isn’t something to be proud of either. References tell researchers where you got your ideas from…it only makes you look good when someone in the citation chain wins a Nobel Prize or something like that.
Just to clarify, this post was (mostly) tongue in cheek. I don’t actually mind Freedom House citing me. I just thought it was quite lolzy given my reputation in some quarters.
The kiss of death…
Actually, no way. Totally boosts your cred in the “mainstream,” which can come in handy. It’s harder to say someone is a beyond-the-pale radical when you’re citing their work when it suits you..
They use him as a citation for “There was an abundance of evidence of electoral fraud” and it comes up on google pretty easily – http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2012/russia#_edn21
Well that is awkward.
On the contrary and I completely endorse what Craig says.
One cannot simply cherry pick sources. It is a sign of moral and intellectual bankruptcy when you see that done. If Freedom House consider you an authority when it them, then they cannot turn round and trash you when it doesn’t. They can of course disagree with you, but then that means that they must engage with you.
Of course trashing you or more likely ignoring you is what they will do. However they have now given you the most powerful argument it is possible to have.
Incidentally, you may care to reflect on the fact that they (and by extension the US government) are following this blog. I wonder who else is?
Comments were closed on your open forum so I decided to just post it here.
Polish documentary Letter from Poland that aired in Holland questioning whether Russia had a hand or/and is covering up what happened to the presidential plane crash.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/letter-from-poland/
“Should I Give Up Already?”
No…but getting cited in a rant resulting from someone doing research rabbit hole digging isn’t something to be proud of either. References tell researchers where you got your ideas from…it only makes you look good when someone in the citation chain wins a Nobel Prize or something like that.
Now you’ll be obsessing about your citation counts on Google Scholar. I found a couple more to add to the pile…
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/TimisoaraW/EMT/EMT2-06.pdf
http://theamericanconservative.com/pdf/darwinism-china.pdf
http://www.oralhistoryforum.ca/index.php/ohf/article/view/51/77
Plus (as you know) I cite you a couple of times in my book… when it comes out. (I’d link to the book listing, but the publisher’s description is embarrassingly hyperbolic. It needs to be fixed before I’d feel comfortable posting anything about it.)
Just to clarify, this post was (mostly) tongue in cheek. I don’t actually mind Freedom House citing me. I just thought it was quite lolzy given my reputation in some quarters.