Editors should be beyond reproach. This is more important for bigger journals.
A generous interpretation would be that these are clumsily formulated, half-baked ideas. If so, he should have been wise enough to keep those to himself until he had something useful to say. That lack of maturity disqualifies him.
There are also less generous interpretations of what he wrote.
I'll stay away from the fray here but I'll say this: HU has been a time bomb for years now.
Ever since he got to Chicago he's in way over his head. This is someone with only OK IQ for his rank and subhuman emotional IQ. And he's someone in one of the most powerful positions in Economics and in one of its most visible departments. The combination of the two would bring him down, sooner or later.
This has been apparent ever since he arrived in Chicago and, within the week, started asking inane questions in seminars, with eyes rolling around the room. It got worse when he got to department chair: he was so unbearable, the University almost cut off Economics. It tells you something of the collective at Chicago that they have allowed him to assume these positions. And there, I'm afraid, only the department's ideological faction supporting him is to blame.
Editors should be beyond reproach. This is more important for bigger journals.
A generous interpretation would be that these are clumsily formulated, half-baked ideas. If so, he should have been wise enough to keep those to himself until he had something useful to say. That lack of maturity disqualifies him.
There are also less generous interpretations of what he wrote.
^Weezul.
I'll stay away from the fray here but I'll say this: HU has been a time bomb for years now.
Ever since he got to Chicago he's in way over his head. This is someone with only OK IQ for his rank and subhuman emotional IQ. And he's someone in one of the most powerful positions in Economics and in one of its most visible departments. The combination of the two would bring him down, sooner or later.
This has been apparent ever since he arrived in Chicago and, within the week, started asking inane questions in seminars, with eyes rolling around the room. It got worse when he got to department chair: he was so unbearable, the University almost cut off Economics. It tells you something of the collective at Chicago that they have allowed him to assume these positions. And there, I'm afraid, only the department's ideological faction supporting him is to blame.
Yeah, I'm sure you are one of his U Chicago colleagues and not some Moby undergread.
I'll stay away from the fray here but I'll say this: HU has been a time bomb for years now.
Ever since he got to Chicago he's in way over his head. This is someone with only OK IQ for his rank and subhuman emotional IQ. And he's someone in one of the most powerful positions in Economics and in one of its most visible departments. The combination of the two would bring him down, sooner or later.
This has been apparent ever since he arrived in Chicago and, within the week, started asking inane questions in seminars, with eyes rolling around the room. It got worse when he got to department chair: he was so unbearable, the University almost cut off Economics. It tells you something of the collective at Chicago that they have allowed him to assume these positions. And there, I'm afraid, only the department's ideological faction supporting him is to blame.
Right... The University of Chicago almost cut off economics.
Poor trolling
Editors should be beyond reproach. This is more important for bigger journals.
A generous interpretation would be that these are clumsily formulated, half-baked ideas. If so, he should have been wise enough to keep those to himself until he had something useful to say. That lack of maturity disqualifies him.
There are also less generous interpretations of what he wrote.^Weezul.
Maybe I'm a weezul. Maybe I did not feel the need to repeat what has been said many times above.