Thursday, March 29, 2012

APA Session Rule #2

If you're the commentator and find yourself with little to say in response to the paper, say very little and allow for more time for discussion from the floor. Having little to say in response is not license to spend 20 minutes talking about issues related to (but not addressed in) the paper.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have no comment.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. I would add specifically that commentators with little to say in response to a paper should not be allowed to make the session about their own research.
I have even heard a commentator state aloud the exact bibliographical information of one of his own articles! The said article had very little to do with the topic of the paper commented on.

Anonymous said...

People who begin their comments with "I don't have much to add, but..." should be shot on sight. They always talk for for too long.

CTS said...

Well, some of us are self-effacing and might begin with a self-effacing remark.

That said, unless you were drafted at the last minute (it happens), you ought to either figure out something useful to say or tell the session Chair to find someone else! (Is this another rule?)

Anonymous said...

Thank for rules, Spiros! I go to APA this week, and without rules I not know how to act. Please with more rules Spiros Spiros!

PA said...

Hey Sprios! Wake Up! I need more doom!

Anonymous said...

THE ABORIGINES OF ST. DOMINGO.

Perhaps you will kindly permit me to have recourse to "NOTES AND QUERIES" for the purpose of pointing out one or two errors in a letter from Sir R. Schomburgk, which was read at the meeting of the British Association on the 3rd July last, section of Geography and Ethnology. This communication, entitled "Ethnological Researches in Santo Domingo," and addressed to His Royal Highness Prince Albert, contains the following statement: I quote from the Athenæum of the 5th July:—

"The extirpation of the pure Indian race prevented me from making comparative inquiries between the still existing tribes of Guiana, and those that once inhabited St. Domingo. My researches were therefore restricted to what history and the few and poor monuments have transmitted to us of their customs and manners. Their language lives only in the names of places, rivers, trees, and fruits; but all combine in declaring that the people who bestowed these names were identical with the Carib and Arawaak tribes of Guiana."

The last sentence in this passage is obviously erroneous. That the aboriginal inhabitants of the great Antilles (Santo Domingo, Cuba, Porto-Rico, and Jamaica,) were identical with, or descended from, the Arawaaks of Guiana, is an opinion which has long prevailed, and which the circumstances stated by Sir R. Schomburgk tend to confirm. Indeed, they are described by most writers as Indians or Arawaaks. But that there was any identity between the Indians and the tribes known by the name of Caribs, is an assertion totally at variance with the established facts. In support, however, of this assertion, Sir R. Schomburgk appeals to "history;" but what history, he does not state. I have perused, and still possess, almost every work that was ever written on the history of these islands; and they all lead to the conclusion, that the Indians of Santo Domingo (also called Hispaniola and Haiti) were a totally distinct race from the Caribs. The Indians were a mild, inoffensive people; the Caribs a race of savages, some say, cannibals. The former were indolent and effeminate; the latter fierce and warlike. In short, no two races ever presented such a striking disparity, not only in their manners and customs, but in their features and personal appearance.

HENRY H. BREEN.

Anonymous said...

News from the Pacific APA: the registration line still stands at approximately 1.5 hours. (Remember, the APA website was such that on-line registration was impossible.) And the APA is not posting any session information, hoping this will force people to register. Of course, those who tend not to register are usually established enough to have friends who do, so this is certainly not accomplishing anything. But it is making for an incredibly difficult process for those who want to register.

Anonymous said...

4:16 is my favorite comment ever at PhilAnon. By a lot.

5:46, are the people standing in line shocked that there is a really long line? Did they actually not know this would happen, or were they just too akratic to pre-register?

Anonymous said...

They were getting through a person every four minutes or so. That's beyond anyone's expectations. Also we're too akratic.