This is the TL;DR summary of Cummins at work. Full details here.
- Cummins writes an article I think misrepresents Bloom.
- I criticise that, I think without hysteria. I don’t especially make Blooms case, but point out what I see as a misreading of it. I even open with a questioning stance, in case I’m missing something.
- Cummins responds with what I think is fair to call an overly defensive moralising agenda driven reply with what amounts to the accusations of immoral motives for criticising empathy; a non-too-well disguised ad hominem loaded comment. She responds in a similar fashion to others, more condescendingly to some.
- I call out her rhetoric in a follow up comment.
- Cummins deletes that comment of mine.
- Cummins doctors her comment to remove much of the ad hominem content.
- I comment on the doctoring, in the comment stream. That comment soon vanishes.
- I write again, this time sticking to the points about Bloom, addressing the doctored comments in 6.
- Cummins responds calling my now vanished comments ‘hysterical rants’, citing a ‘normative’ comment policy that she doesn’t stick to herself.
- Cummins closes comments.
That smacks of intellectual dishonesty to me. Continue reading “Denise Cummins – Would You Trust Her?”
