MIKEinNYC - a small observation. It is not the case that all other people ("ethnic group") came her voluntarily. Individual Africans came here involuntarily, and today many come voluntarily. 500 years ago, I suppose all Africans came here involuntarily, but some may well have come voluntarily. While many Europeans came voluntarily, many Europeans ("white") came here involuntarily, as either indentured servants or de facto slaves. We don't know enough about immigrations into America thousands of years ago, that produced the "Native Americans". However, it is unlikely given Indian culture over the past 500 to 1000 years, that all of those earliest immigrants came here voluntarily. It seems more likely that entire tribes were forced, involuntarily, either to flee or to fight their way here.

Conclusion: I think craigp was trying to be funny with the anecdote about making his 3-year-old cry. But that did sound intentionally and unnecessarily mean. “…Michelle… chose a thesis topic that made may have made” – I think we know where craigp is going with this. Worse, I think we know where he’s coming from. He has “made” on the mind. Presumably it weren’t missspelled. Craigp then wanders off into a rambling meditation on jokes culminating in a too-long sentence which certifies his perfectly jejeune mindset (“older than I am”). Oh, the temptation to cry “grow up” is so strong. (Disclaimer: Perfect punctuation is not one of my greatest concerns in life, though I would strive for perfect punctuation in professional publications. I am a common person, writing commonly. This is not a thesis, nor a term paper, nor intended for a professional journal. There may be errors of spelling and grammar; I may have misquoted; I may have misexpressed myself at times; I may even have erred regarding facts!)

continued: Critic, relying heavily on the ad hominem tu quoque (i.e., “you, too”) fallacy, believes that a person who makes a certain mistake disqualifies himself as a critic when that mistake appears in others. By that reasoning, if Critic ever stole, lied, or committed any immoral act, Critic would have no right to warn others (Critic’s children, for example) against lying, stealing, or whatever. Were all sins, crimes, and innocent mistakes lumped in a single pot labeled “error”, then whoever commits an “error” would be disqualified from pointing out an “error” made by anyone else. The result is rampant brainlessness and universal depravity. Not to say that there are those who cheer that on, as their ultimate utopia. Some prisons involve their prisoners in programs to warn “children at risk” against committing crimes. Those who have committed crimes (“sins” and “errors”) can in some cases be persuasive critics against those errors. I favor such programs where they demonstrate successful results. Critic should not loose sight that our comments are not theses being introduced for the purpose of a university granting us a degree. We are, in a sense, “just chatting”. We are not attempting to dot every ‘i’ for the sake of a good appearance to impress a professor, even if Critic is a professor. Nit-picking on punctuation in forum comments where adults are expressing views on adult topics is a childish distraction. Intending those distractions to substitute as criticisms against topical arguments is a wonderful demonstration of the inability to reason. I wouldn’t worry a whit about Critic’s complaints about three commas, Anna. If those are the only types of mistakes you make in your compositions, you obviously merit better than a bachelor’s from Princeton. “Your remaining paragraphs also contain glaring errors.” Unfortunately Critic doesn’t describe those errors. Therefore they are probably even LESS substantive than a [presumably] missing comma. craigp’s introduction sets the stage for his bias. He wonders about the percentage of errors “in your brief posting” but fails to actually make the calculation. Many writers use different styles of writing, depending on context and audience. For example, I often use verbs that do not ‘agree’ with their subjects. In some cases, it is because an incorrect usage dominates popular belief. If that wasn’t true, I’m sure your critics would have seen the to-me glaring error in this sentence long before they had reached the period. I don’t judge people by punctuation and spelling, but by words and actions. Were a [perceived] enemy’s words and actions unassailable, then some people, like Critic and craigp, would descend to taunting said opponent with ad-hominems in an infantile attempt to shame them into silence. I think craigp was trying to be funny with the anecdote about making his 3-year-old cry. But that did sound intentionally and unnecessarily mean. “…Michelle… chose a thesis topic that made may have made” – I think we know where craigp is going with this. Worse, I think we know where he’s coming from. He has “made” on the mind. Presumably it weren’t missspelled. Craigp then wanders off into a rambling meditation on jokes culminating in a too-long sentence which certifies his perfectly jejeune mindset (“older than I am”). Oh, the temptation to cry “grow up” is so strong. (Disclaimer: Perfect punctuation is not one of my greatest concerns in life, though I would strive for perfect punctuation in professional publications. I am a common person, writing commonly. This is not a thesis, nor a term paper, nor intended for a professional journal. There may be errors of spelling and grammar; I may have misquoted; I may have misexpressed myself at times; I may even have erred regarding facts!)

Anna 1257, your comments were well ordered, mostly applicable, and generally correct. Therefore, you should not be surprised to find yourself a target of partisan sniping. To articles 1 and 2, which are the meat of your comment, I haven’t compared quantities of mistakes among undergraduates, but I do know that professional writers re-check their work many times, or hire an editor, or find some other way to cover their unproofed tracks. Similarly, undergraduates have many resources. I just simply went over my “finished” product until I could go through it three times in a row without finding a mistake or something I wanted to express better. If I could get through it three times, I figured there probably weren’t more than two or three errors of spelling and punctuation. In the case of a graduate thesis, however, one expects a student to have been appointed an advisor. It then becomes the advisor’s responsibility to ensure, by whatever proper means, that the student’s paper is immaculate in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, organization, integration, and reasoning. A thesis is not produced by a sole individual working alone, extravagant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Article 3. It is odd, Anna, that you would be instructed to go to Princeton and write your own thesis since obviously that do not greatly admire Princeton’s capability to produce students who write worthy theses. Such is your critic’s spite. It is devoid of clear reasoning, and contributes nothing to the discussion. A red herring, a distraction, a futility. On the other hand, if that had been offered as a solution, then narc1 is the one who should “go to Princeton and write a thesis,” unless his is a case of Special Pleading. Article 4. This is not only likely the first thesis I’ve read from Princeton, it is the first “Bachelor’s Thesis” I’ve ever read. So I must bow to your greater experience until convincing evidence to the contrary persuades me otherwise. Article 5 abandoned discussion of the Thesis proper to address a denigrating societal problem – celebrity worship. America’s celebrity-worship extends far beyond the presidential spot-light. Certainly there are those who have worshipped Abraham Lincoln, FDR, the Kennedy’s, Nixon, Reagan, the Clinton’s, the Bush’s, Walter Cronkite, Gandhi, Robert Redford, Bob Avakian, Madonna, Charleton Heston, Martha Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, and now the Obama’s. The solution to celebrity-worship in ancient Rome was not the exposure of the corrupt Emperors, but the rise of a new, hopefully less corrupt “Celebrity” to replace the old. Therefore, the solution to America’s infatuation with her often intellectually handicapped celebrities is to raise up celebrities who are less fettered with such faults, or to find some Thing more reliable than transient celebrities. Critic, relying heavily on the ad hominem tu quoque (i.e., “you, too”) fallacy, believes that a person who makes a certain mistake disqualifies himself as a critic when that mistake appears in others. By that reasoning, if Critic ever stole, lied, or committed any immoral act, Critic would have no right to warn others (Critic’s children, for example) against lying, stealing, or whatever. Were all sins, crimes, and innocent mistakes lumped in a single pot labeled “error”, then whoever commits an “error” would be disqualified from pointing out an “error” made by anyone else. The result is rampant brainlessness and universal depravity. Not to say that there are those who cheer that on, as their ultimate utopia. Some prisons involve their prisoners in programs to warn “children at risk” against committing crimes. Those who have committed crimes (“sins” and “errors”) can in some cases be persuasive critics against those errors. I favor such programs where they demonstrate successful results. Critic should not loose sight that our comments are not theses being introduced for the purpose of a university granting us a degree. We are, in a sense, “just chatting”. We are not attempting to dot every ‘i’ for the sake of a good appearance to impress a professor, even if Critic is a professor. Nit-picking on punctuation in forum comments where adults are expressing views on adult topics is a childish distraction. Intending those distractions to substitute as criticisms against topical arguments is a wonderful demonstration of the inability to reason. I wouldn’t worry a whit about Critic’s complaints about three commas, Anna. If those are the only types of mistakes you make in your compositions, you obviously merit better than a bachelor’s from Princeton. “Your remaining paragraphs also contain glaring errors.” Unfortunately Critic doesn’t describe those errors. Therefore they are probably even LESS substantive than a [presumably] missing comma. craigp’s introduction sets

1. I typed. I used white out, both liquid and paper. I realigned the paper and typed in my corrections. I was taught how to do this in high school typing class. At times I had to retype a page or two of a college paper, sometimes several. That was the way it was done back then. If your product is sloppy, chances are your research and thought were also sloppy. 2. Adolf Hitler is dead. Stop beating a dead dog. And stop accusing everyone with a minor disagreement as possessing pro-Hitler sentiments. 3. Those with thin-skinned emotions ought not boldly plunk out their fragile opinions on a public forum for all to read and respond to. You have no control over the opinions or responses of others. I for one refuse to run shame-faced and hide when someone says they feel “very offended” at something I’ve said. I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else, and I don’t have to have the same opinion as anyone else. I may even have very offensive opinions. “You” certainly do, and “you” haven’t quit. Anywhere you give opinions you will find people who disagree. Learn to deal with it with some degree of dignity rather than through juvenile outbursts. Others are not going to abandon their arguments or change their positions because someone died. That’s not how opinions are formed. That’s not how people are persuaded to accept a different point of view. The formulas are predictable and hackneyed. Associate someone with Hitler. That no longer causes people to scorn the person so associated, but to scorn the person who makes the juvenile, antiquated accusation. Complain that one’s feelings are hurt or that one is somehow offended that his honesty, dignity, virtue, or ancestors are insulted. Call your opponent a racist. Yada yada. It all amounts to the same thing: avoid the subject; call the person you disagree with, embarrassing names in hopes that he will stop talking and go away. The more sincerely scholarly the venue, the more useless this infantile tactic. Whoever wants to discuss a Bachelor’s Thesis as a scholarly exercise may do so. There will be others devoted to partisan politics who will denounce everything, regardless of the quality of scholarship and persuasiveness that is contrary to their political prejudices.

I am grateful for every attempt to make HPL accessible to more people. Whether one likes or abhors HPL's genre, the fact is his writing is some of the greatest ever produced for the common or not so common deep ones.

I have no comment to make that would improve this paper, nor do I have any criticism. I found it unfortunate that no one has yet commented on thte paper. Detailed biographical information on Lovecraft is not that hard to come by, perhaps, for an aficionado. But to find a whole biography, or to read it once found, is a more scarce event. So thank you for providing this presentation of this truly remarkable, original, creative character. He is one of the greatest American authors.

Sorry, narc1. M.L.Robinson may have written better than most Americans, and certainly as well as most majoring in Sociology. Unfortunately, her thesis is not praiseworthy. The mis[s]pellings, misuse of punctuation, and logical fallacies should have been caught and corrected. Her advisor(s) let her down. The age of the student doesn't matter (Kmurra's comments to the contrary). A 16-year-old friend of mine entered as a freshman in college, but was held to the same standard as the 18 and 19 year-olds. He had to spell correctly, punctuate correctly, and write logically sound sentences. But I do realize that the movement to grant degrees to the illiterate is growing. Perhaps the movie "Idiocracy" is genuine prophecy. I'm sorry, narc1, that your ivy league school boasted of so many incompetent faculty. I did not attend an ivy league school, but most of my faculty wrote at considerably better than a bachelor's level. I'm still studying the paper to see what value it may have. Kmurra might miss the point of a thesis. Perhaps a Bachelor's Thesis is allowed more leeway than a Master's or Doctoral. Be that as it may, when presenting the meaning of key terms, it is helpful to the reader, and demonstrative of the author's academic skills, to present at least the major alternatives. If only Carmichael, Hamilton, Billingsley are to be referenced for the meaning of "separationism", then why were those two selected and no others presented even in footnotes. Carmichael's goal, by the way, was probably more concerned with taking power and changing society or creating a new one, rather than with joining an already established society. The Devil is in the Politics. I believe that most who praise this thesis share the political views expressed in it and expressed by its author today. Likewise, most who criticize it disagree with the political views expressed in it and expressed by its author today. Few are those who are willing to look at it from a (nearly) exclusively academic perspective, which is how it should have been judged.