Byrd Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> If you explore the other ideas in any depth, you
> will find a lot of flaws. Hancock is a wonderful
> writer (one of my friends is actually related to
> him (third cousin). However, he thought his
> career as a journalist made him the world's best
> researcher. He's been miffed that academics keep
> saying "you're not seeing the whole picture --
> you're making silly guesses based on not knowing
> and not understanding the cultures." So when they
> criticize him, he complains that academics can't
> (as the expression goes) "think out of the box."
>
> The problem with his statement (academics can't
> think beyond orthodox ideas) is that you can't get
> a PhD or even a Masters' if you simply parrot
> other ideas. You have to come up with something
> very new and very interesting for your research
> (as you may know if you got one of those degrees.)
> And if you have a really new idea (like the
> continental drift) and can prove it with good
> evidence (continental drift) then they will throw
> out old ideas and accept the new one.
>
> But he writes well. And many people love his
> writing.
>
> I did at one time. I like the way he writes but
> all his errors and leaps to wrong conclusions just
> annoy me now.


About Hancock being a real good writer I agree. The words he uses and how he writes it turns reading his material really pleasant. But being here and learning the things you are presenting to me is lifting up a lot of red flags about the content of his writings. I wonder if I'm being too naive maybe while reading his books.

Cintia Panizza
———————————

"Happiness is only real when shared."
Christopher McCandless