WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Morley]

In my opinion it is, effort is key to most every discipline in life with successful people. I am not really sure why you would reject that notion. If a historian is not willing to take the extra steps, and work hard; doing the best they can to know as much about the subject/s they are addressing, then their reconstruction and conclusions will not be the best they can be. It's that simple.

You're grasping at straws here. Professions are defined, in part, by the people working in the profession, and the standards set by people working in the professions. Effort may be necessary, but it's never sufficient. You already know this. An apprentice electrician who couldn't grasp the fundamentals of his profession would never be advanced to journeyman, no matter how much effort he was putting in. And that's a good thing. A journalist who tried really, really hard, but who was a plagiarist and could not keep to the ethics of his profession, would be pilloried, and that's a good thing.

You already know all of this. You're pretending otherwise because you feel backed into a corner.

Cooper doesn't call himself a historian because even he knows the he doesn't meet any of the standards to be a historian. It doesn't matter how much effort he puts in--because he doesn't meet any of the standards. His peers know that and he knows that. I will grant that he's a story teller. So is my Uncle Delbert and half of the old men that I know. I don't give any of them much credence as historians.

Like any story teller, Cooper is vague on the details, and changes them depending on who he is talking to. He feels free to defame Churchill just to take a jab at his partner. That's what a story teller does. He doesn't have to be accurate, he just has to be entertaining. Those are not the standards of a historian.

You like Cooper's entertainment value; you really want to believe him; so you assign him some gravitas that he doesn't deserve. That's all fine. But stop pushing this crap off on us.

Please continue to believe Cooper's a historian. Continue to believe he's credible. You can even have hurt feelings that no one agrees with you. It's not going to change anything. As a historian, the guy is a quack.

[Morley]

Fox News is not a profession. Journalism is a profession.

To answer the question you're going to follow-up with: Yes, Fox News has some reputable journalists.

Now it's your turn to answer:

A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, chemist, or journalist.

Why would you think a historian should be measured by some other metric?

edit: typo

Fox News is a media outlet and organization, you wrote, as a question, which we are discussing, not journalism:

"2. This is not just the reading of everyone else on this thread, it’s the interpretation of news media and organizations all over the world."

Is Fox News Reputable?

Has Fox News demonstrated expertise? Do they have experience in both the news and as editorial opinion, and even their hit pieces? I'll add are they competitive with their competition...e.g. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS...? Do they hold a substantial percentage of the overall market viewing and listening (radio) share with both the networks and the cable news competitors?

Every one of those is a yes.

Is Fox News "recognized by other outlets to be reliable?" Right leaning yes, left leaning no...which point to my original assertion it is hard to corral what is reputable because of our biases.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I wrote, which had to do with a person's credibility within their profession.

[Morley]

Gonna bump this:

Markk, you invoked my name in at least 5 previous posts within this thread, so I figure that you just missed my questions:

In 1939 the Germans were clearly persecuting the Jews, but it was not until 1941 and 1942, did the Germans start mass exterminations. Until the camps were built, again over 1000, the Nazis kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them.

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

[Gadianton]

Again, this has nothing to do with what I wrote, which had to do with a person's credibility within their profession.

I admire your efforts Morley. Indeed you are correct.

Cooper is not a "historian" by an standards that would exclude Joe Rogan from also being a historian.

[Gadianton]

Markk, simple "yes" or "no" question"

Did the holocaust happen?

[Gadianton]

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

Great questions. Let's see if they'll get answered.

[Morley]

Markk: I really like this guy as an physician. You should hire him to remove your appendix. He's really good.

Morley: Listening to him, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Markk: I know appendix removal better than I know almost anything else except religion. This guy is good.

Morley: I checked and I see that he has no training or experience as a physician. I looked to see what other physicians said and nobody thought he was competent.

Markk: He tries really hard and puts a lot of effort into his work. He has some theories about appendix removal that you might like, if you'd just give him a chance. Watch this interview where he explains his process. Don't let your bias get in your way.

Morley: Are you kidding? In that video, your guy said the liver is the worst organ in the body. That the body would be better off with no liver.

Markk: Yeah, I don't agree with him about that--but, hell, I can see where he's coming from. A lot of people don't like liver. I'd rather have a good steak, myself. Still he has some good ideas about the appendix thing. Just give him a chance.

This is the point where Morley should have just turned and walked out of the room. But Morley didn't. Morley is an idiot.

[canpakes]

...I think a historian should be rated on their work as a whole. I think effort should be paramount. In my opinion, lazy history is bad history....which is why I have so much respect for Dan Vogel. Few Mormon historians work harder and are more informed than he is. Also in my opinion, objectivity is key, nothing is worse that a history being written without objectivity, a-la Kerry Muhlestein.

You don't have to always agree with their reconstructions and conclusions, but in my view even when you disagree with a well-written piece of history, you can understand where and why they came to the conclusions they did.

In Cooper's case, from the two podcasts I have listened to on the subject at hand, while I don't agree with all his conclusions, I understand how and why he came up with them.

I can't believe this needs to be said, but no, Markk, 'effort' isn't paramount when rating the work of a historian, or any other academic, for that matter. Trying really, really hard doesn't guarantee in any way that there will be value in a given body of work.

Exactly. As example, much of the work of FARMS, or many of the ‘Church Essays’ could fall into the category of trying really, really hard to ‘explain’ something, but still ending up with inaccurate, ineffective, or even purposely misleading results.

[Gadianton]

Markk: I really like this guy as an physician. You should hire him to remove your appendix. He's really good.

Morley: Listening to him, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Markk: I know appendix removal better that I know almost anything else except religion. This guy is good.

Morley: I checked and I see that he has no training or experience as a physician. I looked to see what other physicians said and nobody thought he was competent.

Markk: He tries really hard and puts a lot of effort into his work. He has some theories about appendix removal that you might like, if you'd just give him a chance. Watch this interview where he explains his process. Don't let your bias get in your way.

Morley: Are you kidding? In that video, your guy said the liver is the worst organ in the body. That the body would be better off with no liver.

Markk: Yeah, I don't agree with him about that--but, hell, I can see where he's coming from. A lot of people don't like liver. I'd rather have a good steak, myself. Still he has some good ideas about the appendix thing. Just give him a chance.



This is the point where Morley should have just turned and walked out of the room. But Morley didn't. Morley is an idiot.

you're killing me...

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk: I really like this guy as an physician. You should hire him to remove your appendix. He's really good.

Morley: Listening to him, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Markk: I know appendix removal better that I know almost anything else except religion. This guy is good.

Morley: I checked and I see that he has no training or experience as a physician. I looked to see what other physicians said and nobody thought he was competent.

Markk: He tries really hard and puts a lot of effort into his work. He has some theories about appendix removal that you might like, if you'd just give him a chance. Watch this interview where he explains his process. Don't let your bias get in your way.

Morley: Are you kidding? In that video, your guy said the liver is the worst organ in the body. That the body would be better off with no liver.

Markk: Yeah, I don't agree with him about that--but, hell, I can see where he's coming from. A lot of people don't like liver. I'd rather have a good steak, myself. Still he has some good ideas about the appendix thing. Just give him a chance.

This is the point where Morley should have just turned and walked out of the room. But Morley didn't. Morley is an idiot.

This might be the best example of engaging Markk, and by extension the MAGAts, I have ever read.

- Doc