http://desicritics.org/ Superior South Asian bloggers on Culture, Media, Politics, Sport, Business, and Technology. en Copyright 2006 by the authors Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:04:02 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss BC custom software http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337512 yep, i did mean to pun on pape, but typed it as paper! 337512@desicritics.org Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:04:02 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337509 chuckles at the pun, well, it was actually pape but pun taken (if you excuse the rebound pun) 337509@desicritics.org Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:14:19 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337474 BD: ""5 years of global survey and this pap comes out. Criminal"" ""Pap""? wasn't it Richard Paper? 337474@desicritics.org Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:37:11 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337473 makes sense BD. I am surprised how polite you are! In response to my pointless nitpicking, you could have legitimately responded "Mind your own business!". A true scholar you! Appreciate the review! Sure looks like a wasted opportunity if they spend 5 years on it and then rushed it... 337473@desicritics.org Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:34:54 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337456 i kept on making notes as I went along, commonsense, and felt it a waste to waste them, so to say. Also as I said, i kept on hoping i will get a better insight somewhere. There are some good points, no doubt, but page after page after page... but anyway, to get back to the basic point, it was a shame that the authors lost such a great opportunity to actually say what the Muslims think. Using this book, they actually added to the problem than resolving it. 5 years of global survey and this pap comes out. Criminal 337456@desicritics.org Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:44:16 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337449 in the great desi tradition of pointless nitpicking, i looked at the review again and was surprised at how long and detailed it is! if a journal assigns someone to review a book, it makes sense to write a negative review if the book deserves it. but this is totally voluntary! i am intrigued that you spent so much time at pointing out that crap is crap....ie. commonsense :) 337449@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:29:48 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337448 ""I dont have to read it to the end to know that its crap. You dont have to eat a rotten banana to the end to know that its rotten, do you? :)"" I totally agree! However, I would not write a long piece detailing how rotten the banana was. Enough time wasted on eating it in the first place, don't you think? Just a thought! :) 337448@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:27:09 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337444 waste of time, commonsense? not at all, its a crap book and i listed out the reasons why it was crap. I dont have to read it to the end to know that its crap. You dont have to eat a rotten banana to the end to know that its rotten, do you? :) you spit it out after the first bite :). I was charitable, kept on thinking it will get better, but to no avail. Plus think about all the luminaries who praise it, clearly they havent read it. nielej, here's a thought for you, why dont you review the book, specially concentrating on the part after say 139, and then I will go pick up the book again and then finish the review. And then we will see if those few pages suddenly turn a crap book into a profound book which will change my opinion. Deal? Or since you seem to have read the book, please refer to the actual issues that i have raised of the pages that I have read and then we can debate that. Till now, I have no reason to believe that the rest of the book is any better than the previous lot. What I am surprised about is the sheer bad scholarship of the authors, but I am willing to be surprised, look forward to reading your thoughts, nielej and then we can have a nice natter :) 337444@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:41:43 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337439 Additional reviews of the book are welcome - it seems interesting, and I wish I'd picked it up at the airport bookshop today. 337439@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:50:41 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337438 I'm with Morris and commonsense. you must've not found any errors on pages 97-139 so you gave up reviewing because it did not follow your mold of an error on every third page. funny how you say the book is 230 pages (it is actually 204)but that includes the appendix and endnotes. The main text itself ends on page 166, a mere 27 pages from where you stopped in disgust. I suggest you try finishing the book. you might be surprised at what you find about Muslims and the West's views towards better relations with each other--the point of the book. 337438@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:43:00 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337434 Dr. BD, Like Morris I'm a bit befuddled too! Perhaps it was a further waste of time to write such a long review of a book that was a waste of time that you could not complete? :) 337434@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:40:30 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337386 Morris. well, I suppose the only conclusion that I can draw from that book was that it was a waste of time to even begin that book. For what its worth, its 230 pages, and if the silly book hasnt improved by 130 pages, then, well, you get the idea... :) 337386@desicritics.org Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:36:44 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337385 I do not know how many pages there are in the book. Could one write a review without reading the whole book? Perhaps one can, I suppose. Rather than reviewing it page by page I wish you reviewed it by agreeing and/or disaggreeing with their conclusions. I find your approach left me as much uninformed as ever about the book. But that may be me. Who knows? Every one else may find your review very enlightening. 337385@desicritics.org Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:06:14 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337339 temp bhai: they definitely smoke the same week from the same pipe. :-) 337339@desicritics.org Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:25:50 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337335 well, i collected the reviews of the book, and they were all so laudable that I figured, hmm, lets get hold of it. bad mistake, its horrible 337335@desicritics.org Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:44:30 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337326 ana: pape? he is minor league perhaps you meant pipe? 337326@desicritics.org Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:49:11 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/20/070847.php#comment-337318 BD: I would have taken one look at Esposito's name on the cover and not bothered reading the book. He alongside Pape (and various others) are part of the post 9/11 terrorism/Islam/clash of civilizations publishing industry and seem to produce one book after another that is useless, grim and rife with basic factual errors. On the other hand, kudos for lasting 139 pages of it. And for bringing to attention the Canadian study. 337318@desicritics.org Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:39:35 EDT