Comments on: Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

By: R.R.

R.R. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:13:04 +0000

God, you people will believe anything:

http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2009/06/polygraphlevel-scholarship-may-suffice-for-harmless-speculation-about-the-authorship-of-midsummers-n.html

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:39:06 +0000

You are really not much of a literary scholar (and neither are your “sources”), are you? This kind of coincidental similarity doesn’t hold a lot of water with serious scholars (or anyone with just a little common sense). For example, your ranking system of A, B, C-level (and let’s assume you have D, E, F through H levels) matches is without explanation or qualification. What standards or qualifications do you have for this ranking system? People who do this kind of work at least have a standard to rank their comparisons.

Here’s a great example of the shoddiness of your work: One of the most quoted (and misquoted) Sandburg lines is “hog butcher to the world,” especially by native (or, in this case, transplanted) Chicagoans. Of course, this similarity stands out as an “A-level match” because it gives you just what you are looking for, which is the worst, most unprofessional, and most unreliable way to do any kind of serious research. Go Google the phrase “hog butcher to the world” (mistake included) and see what you get. By your logic, Kari Lydersen, also wrote “Dreams” or some part of it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302574.html

A better way to go about this would be to compare “Dreams” to 10-20 different authors (including Ayers) of various backgrounds and do a “blind” comparison. If your results still point to Ayers, the credibility level of your argument goes way up. (Somehow, though, I don’t think you are going for credibility.) When you run such a narrow “experiment” and the results just “happen” to coincide with your preconceptions, then you really do more damage to your argument than you think.

But, hey, you have your axe to grind and are still fighting the last election, so you can do whatever you like. Just nobody (except your fellow axe-grinders) is going to take you even the least bit seriously. Good luck with that.

By: jcw46

jcw46 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:32:24 +0000

a little wordy and over all well and good but without the actual citations of page and paragraph this is not definitive to me (and I am certain of his premise).
It’s also a little distracting for him to not even be able to keep tract of what “code” name he’s using to refer to his “source”. He starts off calling them “mr. West” then later refers to them as “mr. midwest” then back again later on. This indicates a lack of proofreading and consistency and perhaps a poor attention to detail, traits that are required in piece dissecting someone else’s authorship.

Editor’s note: “…traits that are required in piece dissecting someone else’s authorship.”

Another necessary trait is reading comprehension.

“mr. West” and “mr. midwest” are not one person.

Lobo