Ruckman’s fascination with long lists of names

I always wondered how much shorter his books would be without the ridiculously lengthy lists of people and institutions he despises! Is he trying to make his readers think that he is more knowledgeable than the scholars who do not mention as many names in their writings? It is hard to not suspect such motives when there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to list so many names. 


4 Responses to “Ruckman’s fascination with long lists of names”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Mike says:

    You know, it is to infer that Dr Ruckman is well read and therefore is qualified to critique these men. Also, since he can name them, it is supposed to appear obvious that an inference of error is present. Yawn.

  2. Visitor says:

    Yeah, that’s annoying.
    It sounds like he’s trying REALLY hard to add credibility to his arguments. If the arguments are sound, let them stand on their own merits. Or, if he must name-drop, put it in an appendix.

    It reminds me of the presidential race between Bush and Kerry…Kerry did drop a lot of names.


    • Anyone notice “E.S. Moore” is listed twice in the span of three names? Or that “practice” is inexplicibly the British spelling? Both of these are near the beginning. He also lists “Newell” at least twice later on. Who edits this guy’s stuff?

    • Webmaster says:

      I noticed that Newman is also listed twice.

Leave a Reply to Visitor Cancel reply