What Rook Hawkins is not

[Ishmael]

"An Historian"
http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.p ... storian%22
Rook Hawkins is also not an expert, by any Rational Standard.

== A Librarian's Definition of Research ==
"Research is a process of investigation. An examination of a subject from different points of view. It's not just a trip to the library to pick up a stack of materials, or picking the first five hits from a computer search. Research is a hunt for the truth. It is getting to know a subject by reading up on it, reflecting, playing with the ideas, choosing the areas that interest you and following up on them. Research is the way you educate yourself." http://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit0 ... 1_03.phtml

== What is Research? ==
In the case of the subject matter that Rook Hawkins self-addresses himself as an expert on, research most certainly requires an understanding of several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. This is because any real investigation of the issues that would be sufficient to understand academic work as "expert" in this area requires that the "scholar" read and interpret the source materials in their original language, translate them, and then compare them with translations and commentary made by other experts in the discipline.

Furthermore, "research" in the area of biblical and classical civilization requires, as a component of expert knowledge, a broad based understanding of archeology. The discipline of archeology can be understood as a basic foundation of any understanding of ancient texts given that archeology can confirm or refute ancient textual accounts, as has been the case with many of the stories in the bible that we now know to be mythology.

A textbook, cursory understanding of these two areas if not sufficient and is certainly not to be construed as "expert" knowledge by any stretch of one's self-deluded imagination. Without having expert ability in these two areas the scope of one's research is limited to the sort of work one might do at the Masters level of any graduate class. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/classics/courses/


== What is a Historian? ==
In the case of the classics, an "expert historian" should have a thorough and broad understanding of:

"... Classical antiquity, ...a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, which begins roughly with the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (7th century BC), and continues through the rise of Alexander the Great and the Fall of the Roman Empire (5th century AD), ending in the dissolution of classical culture with the close of Late Antiquity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Cla ... vilisation

...even if the "historian" does not have the requisite Ph.D. in the area that they self-address themselves "historian" in.
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos054.htm


== What is a peer review? ==
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.

As for Rook Hawkin's claim that his book is in "peer review," rational people know that this cannot be the case.

[Randy Ping]

Okay. Maybe you should go to his sight and point it out to him.

[la bella fortuna]

[Gallstones]

"An Historian"
http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.p ... storian%22
Rook Hawkins is also not an expert, by any Rational Standard.
*snip*

== What is Research? ==
In the case of the subject matter that Rook Hawkins self-addresses himself as an expert on, research most certainly requires an understanding of several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. This is because any real investigation of the issues that would be sufficient to understand academic work as "expert" in this area requires that the "scholar" read and interpret the source materials in their original language, translate them, and then compare them with translations and commentary made by other experts in the discipline.

Furthermore, "research" in the area of biblical and classical civilization requires, as a component of expert knowledge, a broad based understanding of archeology. The discipline of archeology can be understood as a basic foundation of any understanding of ancient texts given that archeology can confirm or refute ancient textual accounts, as has been the case with many of the stories in the bible that we now know to be mythology.

A textbook, cursory understanding of these two areas if not sufficient and is certainly not to be construed as "expert" knowledge by any stretch of one's self-deluded imagination. Without having expert ability in these two areas the scope of one's research is limited to the sort of work one might do at the Masters level of any graduate class. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/classics/courses/


== What is a Historian? ==
In the case of the classics, an "expert historian" should have a thorough and broad understanding of:

"... Classical antiquity, ...a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, which begins roughly with the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (7th century BC), and continues through the rise of Alexander the Great and the Fall of the Roman Empire (5th century AD), ending in the dissolution of classical culture with the close of Late Antiquity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Cla ... vilisation

...even if the "historian" does not have the requisite Ph.D. in the area that they self-address themselves "historian" in.
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos054.htm


== What is a peer review? ==
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.

As for Rook Hawkin's claim that his book is in "peer review," rational people know that this cannot be the case.

Why do you think it is appropriate to call Rook out on this site? Why aren't you taking your accusations to RationalResponders?
Can you back up your claims or are you just a libeling troll?

At this point in time, having read some of Rooks writing, I afford him more credibility than I do you.

[anotherclinton]

You want to call out Rook, more power to you. Nobody's above criticism. That being said, call him out where he might actually notice you.

[Ishmael]

Already done. If you have read Rook's work and afford him credibility I doubt yours.

[jcgadfly]

Odd, I was just over there and saw nothing from you.

Did you do this under another name? Got a link for this calling out you did at RRS?

[CJ]

Already done. If you have read Rook's work and afford him credibility I doubt yours.

Ishmael

You're new here. If you have come here to promote an agenda there's nothing I can do about that, yet. But start pissing on the other members here and I will show you the door, very fast.

Regards
Chris

[Gallstones]

Ishmael, you didn't respond to my questions.
Have you posted your accusations at RationalResponders where Rook can be notified of them and be given a chance to respond?
Why are you bringing this here?
What evidence can you provide that your criticisms are founded?

Rational minds would like to know. Can we have an answer please?

[Ishmael]

Odd, I was just over there and saw nothing from you.

Did you do this under another name? Got a link for this calling out you did at RRS?

That is because when I brought up the subject I was banned and the thread was deleted. That is how one is forced to deal with criticism of this kind when one is trying to start at the top of a profession.

[DaveD]

To be fair, there are still some posts from Ishmael at the RRS forum, but many of them have had the contents deleted. It would be easier to find such posts if I joined that forum, but frankly I don't think I could stomach talking to those sanctimonious clowns.
It's easier to get a picture of what's happening there from the Rants and Raves forum. Ishmael, if you could link to relevant posts there that might make it easier to understand where you're coming from.

[Ishmael]

To be fair, there are still some posts from Ishmael at the RRS forum, but many of them have had the contents deleted. It would be easier to find such posts if I joined that forum, but frankly I don't think I could stomach talking to those sanctimonious clowns.
It's easier to get a picture of what's happening there from the Rants and Raves forum. Ishmael, if you could link to relevant posts there that might make it easier to understand where you're coming from.

This is the discussion at RnR. Warning: We are not as dignified as you all are here.
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7889
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740

[Veon]

Does this mean that Rook's book is finally out?

[Ishmael]

Does this mean that Rook's book is finally out?

It's in peer review, lol.

[CJ]

To be fair, there are still some posts from Ishmael at the RRS forum, but many of them have had the contents deleted. It would be easier to find such posts if I joined that forum, but frankly I don't think I could stomach talking to those sanctimonious clowns.
It's easier to get a picture of what's happening there from the Rants and Raves forum. Ishmael, if you could link to relevant posts there that might make it easier to understand where you're coming from.

This is the discussion at RnR. Warning: We are not as dignified as you all are here.
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7889
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740

Ah! The mists start to clear

[Storeo]

The Rational Responders

[Rook Hawkins]

I have replied here, for all interested.

[CJ]

I have replied here, for all interested.

Then again maybe not

[CJ]

As Rook is now a member he is entiled to the protection of the rules. So personal attacks from here on in will yield warnings to the offender.

Regards
Chris

[Ishmael]

Rooky boy's response to http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.p ... storian%22

What I am not, apparently, is a historian.

Correct, you aren't

There is no truth behind this jocularity, but there is a serious accusation that needs to be addressed. In a recent thread, posted by somebody who exhibits a severe naivety to logical discourse, I have been called out, as it were. In any case, this is a response, although concise as it may be, to the presupposition of this little nimrod for everything abrasive.

It does need to be addressed, by you going to college.

Three headers, or points, are situated throughout the post. They are so called “What is Research?”, “What is a Historian?”, and “What is peer review?”. In all three of these categories, the author has listed examples of the criteria that need to be met in order to be sufficiently considered an expert. In my examination of the three topics, I have not found a single criterion that would somehow invalidate my position as a Historian.

Okay. Let's take a look at your Vitae and consider your original research published in peer reviewed historical journals. Oh right, you have none so you are at liberty to call yourself anything you choose since any claim has about the same weight.

Under his “Research” category, he lists the need to be proficient at “several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. (sic!)” I don’t know many scholars who hold so many proficiency certificates in all of those languages. With the exception of Bart Ehrman, who is a textual critic (so his job is to specifically deal with all these languages), I can not think of many scholars who would fit this criteria. Perhaps he meant that the historian needs to be proficient in some of these languages? In any case, I am proficient in translating Koine Greek and Coptic. I defer to other experts, as do many historians, in languages outside of their focus. I would also agree with his conclusion that a broad understanding of archaeological methodologies is required, and anybody who has taken my online course can verify that I have always made sure they understood its importance. Any cursory reading of the articles I write will validate this further.

Prove it. Oh, you can't because you haven't subjected yourself to the process of credentialing required by the profession.

This person, who continues to show his ignorance, asks “What is a Historian?” By which he quotes from wikipedia (there are other, more valid sources for information and definitions; an Oxford Dictionary would hold more weight here), that an expert historian should have a “thorough and broad understanding” of a period some 1200 years, spanning the composition of Homer’s epics to fall of the Roman Empire. I would agree, and again I do not see how this would invalidate my position.

Wikipedia is an excellent source of general information that is often footnoted with peer reviewed research articles. Come on, all "historians" know that! Or were you using the wikipedia cache page from 1995?

Prove your broad understanding.. Oh, you can't because you haven't been credentialed by non-biased people...

Not only do I have a library of information throughout the course of these generations, but I also am more than knowledgeable about new scholarship on about 600 years of this span. Specifically, my focus starts from the conquest of the ancient Near East by Alexander the Great and ends at the Council of Nicea in 325.

You have books and you have a focus. That makes you an interested amateur, not an expert historian.

Also,
Wikipedia is an excellent source of general information that is often footnoted with peer reviewed research articles. Come on, all "historians" know that! Or were you using the wikipedia cache page from 1995?

Finally, he gets the definition of peer review right, and then says that I cannot be in the process of this. This is a claim, like the others he makes, that he does not back up but rather he presupposes they are incorrect. A scan of the forum topics on the RRS message boards will reveal the thread in which Thomas L. Thompson, a leading scholar of the Old Testament and editor of a peer reviewed journal, admits that he is indeed peer reviewing my book in light of similar criticisms I have received from others with the same amount of ignorance displayed by the author of this new thread.

A friend from a message board who happens to be an editor looking at your “book” is not a peer review. In oder for there to be a “peer review” you would have to be a peer. Your peers are high school graduates who dabble in history and archeology.

Since no real criticism has been brought up against me, I see no reason to disagree with at least a majority of what this original poster defines as an expert. I also see no reason why this author feels that these criteria do not reflect me in any accurate fashion—that is, unless he is so completely ignorant of any work I have posted or any research I have done. But this original poster has shown ignorance to a multitude of other positions concerning the RRS and topics that the RRS deals with. Being it is slowly becoming apparent that these tactics are the original posters modus operandi, I don’t expect many people to take him seriously. At least, the people who matter will not take him seriously.

The people that matter are the people who aren't going to publish work produced by an amateur who calls himself “an Historian” and has a plagiarism http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/1 ... rizer.html" issue.

[Storeo]

[gap]

So you don't look up who Thomas L Thompson is (hello wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson) and you probably don't look up anything this Hawkins might have published, but instead you just cite a biased source accusing of plagiarism and decide it was a job well done.

I mean, come on, it's not even HARD to do more than this.

As for that plagiarism accusation... crediting the person you ripped off is a pretty dumb thing to do if you're trying to pretend you made it all up by yourself. It makes it kinda easy to find who it came from originally, no?

And, for the record, I don't care at all about Rook Hawkins, or Ishmael. Really, I don't. But this "scandal" isn't even prima facie convincing, much less when looked into a little past skin deep.

[Ishmael]

So you don't look up who Thomas L Thompson is (hello wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson) and you probably don't look up anything this Hawkins might have published, but instead you just cite a biased source accusing of plagiarism and decide it was a job well done.

I mean, come on, it's not even HARD to do more than this.

As for that plagiarism accusation... crediting the person you ripped off is a pretty dumb thing to do if you're trying to pretend you made it all up by yourself. It makes it kinda easy to find who it came from originally, no?

And, for the record, I don't care at all about Rook Hawkins, or Ishmael. Really, I don't. But this "scandal" isn't even prima facie convincing, much less when looked into a little past skin deep.

No you are wrong, he plagiarized:
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ey-on.html

Not sure why you posted Thomas T there...

[gap]

Man, I sure understand why they just banned your troll ass.

You're not even putting in any effort. I guess I'll just stop feeding you.

Also, atheismsucks sure has really low editorial standards.

[Ishmael]

Man, I sure understand why they just banned your troll ass.

You're not even putting in any effort. I guess I'll just stop feeding you.

Also, atheismsucks sure has really low editorial standards.

I don't know what you mean, there really isn't that much here. Atheismsucks is a biased site but they caught the guy red handed-- then Rook tried to get McKinsey to vouch for him via email-- unfortunately for him, after Frank Walton explained things in more detail via his own email, McKinsey (without condemning an "ally") said the "if he did" what he clearly did, he should not. It's all there on the site.

All I am pointing out is that Rook is pretending to be something he is not. I think I've made it clear. If that makes me a troll so be it, Rook can't answer any of these charges sufficiently.