"Daniel-San" (Rot13) wrote in message
m...

Apparently, my very lame attempt at inter-disciplinary-rivalry based
humor
did not work. Absolutely nothing serious intended. Goofing around. Merely
stating a commonly held (if only in a humoristic sense) belief (among
historians, anyway) regarding research methods in poli.sci. No offense
intended. I'd apologize for any confusion, but . . .

No, it's late and I am medicated of late. I was afraid that you had taken
offense to my reply to your comments about political scientist. The
"ridiclous" part kinda thru me, and I thought I had touch a sensitive spot,
as I know how sensitive you historians can be :~^ ) ---BIG SMILEY FACE!

See above. Goofing around. Historians tend to think that they are the only
true empiricists in the academy. All others find data to suit their
hypotheses.The high and mighty historian, OTOH, finds the info empirically
and then draws conclusions.

As I am no political scientist, merely a student of the field of study, I
certainly can't disgree with any of the above

Yikes.

It's not really as bad as it sounds, except that the neck brace is much like
one of those funnel collars the keep pets from licking their wounds! I just
know the guyz at work will have a great time throwning food, paper, nutz and
bolts... in an attempt to feed me!


Dan
...seriously, I was goofing around.

Same here!

Op