Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

About Steve Harris/British Lion: Isn't it odd that Harris - a West Ham fan - chose to name his side project after an animal found in the logo of a team all Hammers fans despise?

xchelsea.gif.pagespeed.ic.IWuuK59S3P.webp
 
Am I the only one interested in how does a fundamentally flawed methodology in a research on assassins actually look like? (unless we're talking about a rather different kind of "assassins", that is, hotels where the paying customers would be presented with a rather unusual form of family-unfriendly entertainment, where every methodology is flawed by definition, but I somehow doubt it)

And also, whether the word "asinine" has been uttered in the evaluation, you know, just for pun.

Anyway, jesting aside, I wish you good luck and lots of patience, Perun! You are thoughtful and erudite, so it's only a matter of time and hard work :ok:
​
 
Probably pulling apart his approach to analysis/interpretation. Attacking people's methodology is also a handy way of undermining someone's conclusions if you don't personally agree with them or find it contradicts your own work.
 
Brigantium said:
Attacking people's methodology is also a handy way of undermining someone's conclusions if you don't personally agree with them or find it contradicts your own work.
Click to expand...

This was actually what I had in mind (well, I admit it might have been a tad hard to discern under those puerile remarks, but anyway) - apart from the general confusion between methodology and method, people (especially in the academic environment) tend to really misuse these words very often. Hence my interest in what makes Per's methodology fundamentally flawed - i. e. meaning that his assessment and evaluation (or possibly the choice) of methods used for his assassin research is wrong on the very basic level (and whether is that even possible). Sounds weird to me, anyway.
 
Well, some professors are just old stubborn bastards, and will use their authority to make others doubt their own work by questioning their work at a very basic level.

I once witnessed a PhD defense where the candidate had presented his work and the 1st opponent started his questioning with the following: "Thank you. Your thesis is well written and your work is thorough. That does of course not mean I necessarily agree with it".
 
JudasMyGuide said:
This was actually what I had in mind (well, I admit it might have been a tad hard to discern under those puerile remarks, but anyway) - apart from the general confusion between methodology and method, people (especially in the academic environment) tend to really misuse these words very often. Hence my interest in what makes Per's methodology fundamentally flawed - i. e. meaning that his assessment and evaluation (or possibly the choice) of methods used for his assassin research is wrong on the very basic level (and whether is that even possible). Sounds weird to me, anyway.
Click to expand...

My methodology has some problems, I admit that, but digesting what they guy said a bit further, I think he focussed too much on one aspect that was not really the main issue I wanted to discuss. I actually think he didn't get the actual point of my talk, and some other people who attended it told me so as well.
 
That's rather bad attitude from the guy, looks to me that he was just seeking to find a flawed method for the sake of commenting.
I'm also as baffled as Judas by his choice of wording.
 
Btw, @Maidenfans, anyone listened to V1's Armageddon: End Of The Beginning, or Thunderstick's Something Wicked This Way Comes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top