WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Markk]

Lol, well yes, there are historical documentaries and historical podcasts, and it is the future of learning more and more. We will have to see how A.I. impacts that. What it has to do with "anything"....it is just so telling of how you criticize what you haven't even experienced or tested.

The issue of this particular aside isn't whether it's a "historical" podcast or a "science" podcast, but whether the podcaster is a scientist or a historian. You're conflating the genre of the output and the credentials of the producer on purpose. Listening to his podcasts won't help answer the question of whether he's a historian. If you change your point to be; Gad, you can't say you don't agree with him if you've never listened to his podcasts, then that would be a much better point. My response to that would be, I listened to him for at least 20 minutes on Tucker and I wasn't impressed. I did research his output, after you brought him up as a historian, to see if there is any educational background, productions, or acclaim that could qualify him as a historian and nope, nothing.

Many of his podcast are very exhaustive, over 20 hours, so in that regard they are well researched, well produced, and very informative and one can learn a lot of history from them.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make him a historian. If I make 20 hours of exhaustive podcasts on quantum mechanics that physics guy greenlights as okay, it won't make me a physicist.

He is teaching history, he does his homework, he is exhaustive, well read, well prepared, and most the time entertaining. One can learn a lot of history and facts of different subjects from his obvious hard work ethic, and talent to communicate what he studies. If you don't think he is a historian great, but if you listened to his podcasts, I guarantee you your would learn more history on the subjects at hand, than you would ever admit to. And if you gave the guy a chance, and actually made the effort to listen to one of his podcasts, you would see you are way off on who he is and what he offers.

[Marcus]

No, it's not. It's the way uneducated people are entranced by the flashy stuff, but NO. And let me be even more specific, that's a HARD NO. It is NOT "the future of learning". You only think that because you can't figure out what it takes to be a historian, and you're swayed by the charisma of a charlatan.

People are going to be able to learn more from their PC, staying home, for a fraction of the cost of what a education costs them today. As it develops and documentaries and podcasters improve, learning will adapt with it. It is happing already with online universities and programs, I am not sure what world you are living in. You said you were a professor, when you are walking around campus, take look at the students and how many are on their phones and pads...just as you are reading this on your device. And you forgot the AI part, once that goes all bets are off.

There are some really cool and interesting History podcasts out there, and you can deny that all you want, and good luck to that.

Start here and do your own research, and if you don't think education is heading this way....we can certainly agree to disagree.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/9/898 ... 0discourse.

https://podcast.feedspot.com/higher_education_podcasts/

Are you serious? You literally think that watching quickie podcasts and documentaries is how people become educated? And your evidence is that i should look around and see how many people i observe on their phones????

Again, i reiterate, and yes as a professor, that is not how people are educated. It is how the world gets dumbed down. You are leading the charge.

[Jersey Girl]

Start here and do your own research, and if you don't think education is heading this way....we can certainly agree to disagree.

Let the record show that you just told a professor to do their own research.

This is me:

[Markk]

People are going to be able to learn more from their PC, staying home, for a fraction of the cost of what a education costs them today. As it develops and documentaries and podcasters improve, learning will adapt with it. It is happing already with online universities and programs, I am not sure what world you are living in. You said you were a professor, when you are walking around campus, take look at the students and how many are on their phones and pads...just as you are reading this on your device. And you forgot the A.I. part, once that goes all bets are off.

There are some really cool and interesting History podcasts out there, and you can deny that all you want, and good luck to that.

Start here and do your own research, and if you don't think education is heading this way....we can certainly agree to disagree.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/9/898 ... 0discourse.

https://podcast.feedspot.com/higher_education_podcasts/

Are you serious? You literally think that watching quickie podcasts and documentaries is how people become educated? And your evidence is that i should look around and see how many people i observe on their phones????

Again, i reiterate, and yes as a professor, that is not how people are educated. It is how the world gets dumbed down. You are leading the charge.

Well, those sites I gave you, hosted by professors say otherwise

And, as a professor, can you read? This is what I wrote, in context...."Lol, well yes, there are historical documentaries and historical podcasts, and it is the future of learning more and more. We will have to see how A.I. impacts that. What it has to do with "anything"....it is just so telling of how you criticize what you haven't even experienced or tested."

by the way, what are you a professor of?

If you can't look around and see how our young folks are more and more learning digitally, then I don't really know what to say.

This is part of the conclusion from a paper, on one of my links to you...

"Overall, the use of podcasts in higher education holds significant relevance from both social and political perspectives. In theoretical terms, podcasts provide a means to democratize access to knowledge by delivering educational content in an accessible and easily shareable format. This can contribute to reducing educational disparities and ensuring that quality education is within reach of a wider audience. From a political standpoint, the integration of podcasts in higher institutions can bolster civic engagement and political awareness by enabling the dissemination of discussions and debates on social and political issues. Moreover, podcasts can serve as a powerful tool for fostering critical thinking and reflection on political and social matters, which is crucial in a democratic society. In this regard, higher education institutions have a responsibility to fully explore and harness the potential of podcasts as a tool to promote equity in education and enhance citizen participation in political and social discourse."

Here are a few offered by Harvard https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/design-now- ... of-design/

You can even get a certificate in podcasting these days from Universities....

I help you out here, type this into google, you pick the University "_________________podcasting programs"

here are a few i did for you

https://news.sanfordhealth.org/podcasts/

here is a class offered

https://journalism.berkeley.edu/course- ... fall-2017/

https://www.google.com/search?q=Brown+p ... s-wiz-serp

https://www.google.com/search?q=USC+pod ... s-wiz-serp


This is a AI view.... https://www.google.com/search?q=Are+pod ... e&ie=UTF-8

In regard to documentaries and education, AI thought....

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+fut ... e&ie=UTF-8

I certainly remember from even Grammar school up, the film projector being in our class rooms for learning on a subject....today, the professor, teacher, or even aid, can just offer a link to a documentary, a podcast or website. The more i read on this, it is just overwhelming.

https://www.google.com/search?q=suggest ... e&ie=UTF-8

Good or bad, right or wrong, the future of learning includes podcasts, and documentary formatted programs.

[Marcus]

Are you serious? You literally think that watching quickie podcasts and documentaries is how people become educated? And your evidence is that i should look around and see how many people i observe on their phones????

Again, i reiterate, and yes as a professor, that is not how people are educated. It is how the world gets dumbed down. You are leading the charge.

Well, those sites I gave you, hosted by professors say otherwise

And, as a professor, can you read? This is what I wrote, in context...."Lol, well yes, there are historical documentaries and historical podcasts, and it is the future of learning more and more. We will have to see how A.I. impacts that. What it has to do with "anything"....it is just so telling of how you criticize what you haven't even experienced or tested."

by the way, what are you a professor of?

If you can't look around and see how our young folks are more and more learning digitally, then I don't really know what to say.

This is part of the conclusion from a paper, on one of my links to you...

"Overall, the use of podcasts in higher education holds significant relevance from both social and political perspectives. In theoretical terms, podcasts provide a means to democratize access to knowledge by delivering educational content in an accessible and easily shareable format. This can contribute to reducing educational disparities and ensuring that quality education is within reach of a wider audience. From a political standpoint, the integration of podcasts in higher institutions can bolster civic engagement and political awareness by enabling the dissemination of discussions and debates on social and political issues. Moreover, podcasts can serve as a powerful tool for fostering critical thinking and reflection on political and social matters, which is crucial in a democratic society. In this regard, higher education institutions have a responsibility to fully explore and harness the potential of podcasts as a tool to promote equity in education and enhance citizen participation in political and social discourse."

Here are a few offered by Harvard https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/design-now- ... of-design/

You can even get a certificate in podcasting these days from Universities....

I help you out here, type this into google, you pick the University "_________________podcasting programs"

here are a few i did for you

https://news.sanfordhealth.org/podcasts/

here is a class offered

https://journalism.berkeley.edu/course- ... fall-2017/

https://www.google.com/search?q=Brown+p ... s-wiz-serp

https://www.google.com/search?q=USC+pod ... s-wiz-serp


This is a AI view.... https://www.google.com/search?q=Are+pod ... e&ie=UTF-8

In regard to documentaries and education, AI thought....

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+fut ... e&ie=UTF-8

I certainly remember from even Grammar school up, the film projector being in our class rooms for learning on a subject....today, the professor, teacher, or even aid, can just offer a link to a documentary, a podcast or website. The more i read on this, it is just overwhelming.

https://www.google.com/search?q=suggest ... e&ie=UTF-8

Good or bad, right or wrong, the future of learning includes podcasts, and documentary formatted programs.

You didn't say digitally, you didn't say 'includes.' You said learning by podcasts. And you said I could see evidence of that by looking around to see people on their phones. Changing your story now means you realize how idiotic your comment was. I'm with Chaps and Morley. You can't have intelligent conversation.

[Gadianton]

He is teaching history, he does his homework, he is exhaustive, well read, well prepared, and most the time entertaining. One can learn a lot of history and facts of different subjects from his obvious hard work ethic, and talent to communicate what he studies.

Possibly, but none of this has been at issue in this thread. Nobody has said he doesn't know a lot of facts from different subjects nor that he's a poor communicator, nor that he has a poor work ethic. Josef Stalin had an incredible work ethic. The fact that he is such a good communicator only undermines any deniability for the outrageous things he said on Tucker's podcast.

If you don't think he is a historian great,

He isn't a historian, and it's a problem for you that you don't understand that. Here is what set off this aside, from way at the beginning:

What was the context in which Cooper, as a historian

Moving on:

but if you listened to his podcasts, I guarantee you your would learn more history on the subjects at hand, than you would ever admit to.

Why do you think that? I guarantee you I'd learn a great deal from his podcasts because for one, I'm not a history buff, definitely not a war buff, I can't talk WW2 history like Chap and Cam and Morley can. He'd better have learned enough about history in all those hours of study to tell me something I didn't know. However, I also guarantee you that I would learn much more and faster, with less need to stop and fact check constantly from watching a run-of-the-mill History YouTube channel like SLICE.

I began listening to one of your links that starts off with hip-hop or rap, and moves into a dramatization. That's going to be a very slow way to learn history. And I'm assuming for the sake of argument that he's generally credible and reserves his pro-Hitler polemics for special occasions. That kind of format is good for communicating with the masses, kind of like PBS's Walking with the Dinosaurs, but it's going to be a painfully slow learning process if a person is serious.

I watch YouTube content all the time on subjects I'm interested in but know little about. I have no idea the credentials of the presenters nor do I care, and that's to build a background with a wide range of facts I probably won't get reading in linear fashion from a book. On subjects I know something about, it's very hard to find YouTube content or podcasts that are worth the time.

And if you gave the guy a chance, and actually made the effort to listen to one of his podcasts, you would see you are way off on who he is and what he offers.

Why do you care so much about a podcaster? There are no podcasters or YouTubers I like so much that if you or anyone else here trashed them, that I'd particularly care. Given his outrageous interview with Carlson, it's pretty clear who he is and what he stands for, and what he ultimately offers that would differentiate him from a generic source. Given his skills as a communicator, he wouldn't have told us that he was somebody that he isn't on Tucker's show. It was a long, and obvious, dog whistle to unhinged right-wingers.

[Morley]

Markk, I know I said I'd step back, but I'm going to inject a few words here, anyway.

To someone who is outside of the field of education, as you are, I can kind of see why you'd go with this. You're going to just brush my comments aside, like you do everything else, but that's okay. I need to make them anyway.

This hits a nerve with me because, though I've been out of education for a couple of decades, my doctorate is in educational leadership. Back in the day, a part of my academic research focused on what constitutes best practice in teaching as it's influenced by structural change. Two of the specific structural changes I focused on were the evolving access to technology, and initiatives to modify the school calendar. I actively advocated for both. At the time, the prevailing theory was that computer technology was going to revolutionize teaching, and that the most effective classrooms would, for the most part, be those that made the best use of technology. I pushed for school districts to install computer labs and for students to be required to spend time each day using computer-assisted instruction.

Long story short: After years of advocacy, the research that we conducted showed that we were mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provide better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of markedly improving student learning. It was disheartening, to say the least.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house.

I know this is going to be meaningless to you, because you believe that literally anyone can teach, produce world class art, understand psychology, and speak authoritatively about history. Ha! That's okay, I had to say it anyway.

[Marcus]

Markk, I know I said I'd step back, but I'm going to inject a few words here, anyway.

To someone who is outside of the field of education, as you are, I can kind of see why you'd go with this. You're going to just brush my comments aside, like you do everything else, but that's okay. I need to make them anyway.

This hits a nerve with me because, though I've been out of education for a couple of decades, my doctorate is in educational leadership. Back in the day, a part of my academic research focused on what constitutes best practice in teaching as it's influenced by structural change. Two of the specific structural changes I focused on were the evolving access to technology, and initiatives to modify the school calendar. I actively advocated for both. At the time, one of my theories was that computer technology was going to revolutionize teaching, and that the most effective classrooms would, for the most part, be those that made the best use of technology. I pushed for school districts to install computer labs and for students to be required to spend time each day using computer-assisted instruction.

Long story short: After years of advocacy, the research that we conducted showed that we were mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provide better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of markedly improving student learning. It was disheartening, to say the least.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house.

I know this is going to be meaningless to you, because you believe that literally anyone can teach, produce world class art, understand psychology, and speak authoritatively about history. Ha! That's okay, I had to say it anyway.

I'm very glad you did.

[Markk]

Markk, I know I said I'd step back, but I'm going to inject a few words here, anyway.

To as someone who is outside of the field, as you are, I can kind of see why you'd go with this. You're going to just brush my comments aside, like you do everything else, but I need to make them anyway.

This hits a nerve with me because, though I've been out of education for a couple of decades, my doctorate is in educational leadership. A part of my academic research focused on what constitutes best practice in teaching as it's influenced by structural change. The specific structural change foci, for me, were changes in access to technology and modification of the school calendar. I actively advocated for both. At the time, one of my theories was that computer technology was going to revolutionize teaching, and that the most effective classrooms would, for the most part, be those that made the best use of technology. I pushed for school districts to install computer labs and for students to be required to spend time each day using computer-assisted instruction.

Long story short: After years of advocacy, I concluded that I was mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provided better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of improving student learning.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house.

I know this is going to be meaningless to you, because you believe that literally anyone can teach, produce world class art, understand psychology, and speak authoritatively about history. Ha! That's okay, I had to say it anyway.

Morley,

It funny how you guys don't read what I write, then form a strawman, and then you guys debate why I am wrong, about something I never said.

This is what I wrote to Gad.

Lol, well yes, there are historical documentaries and historical podcasts, and it is the future of learning more and more. We will have to see how A.I. impacts that. What it has to do with "anything"....it is just so telling of how you criticize what you haven't even experienced or tested.

Many of his podcast are very exhaustive, over 20 hours, so in that regard they are well researched, well produced, and very informative and one can learn a lot of history from them.

I did not say it is the best way to learn at all, or you can get a degree on them alone....I said it is more and more the future of learning. And I will die on that hill, it simply is a fact.

I will die on this hill also, podcasts and documentaries are extremely valuable tool in learning, as is the class room/lecture setting and experience. But it does not matter what the format is, if the person does not want to learn and apply themselves, they achieve their potential because they are lazy and don't want it. And as I wrote many posts back, it applies to teaching, there are lazy teachers and those that are committed to their craft.

And in that context....you and others are criticizing a persons work, that you are too lazy, or afraid, or too proud.... to even explore or test. It is a Joke. Morley if you listened to the Coal Miner podcast, you would change your mind about Cooper. And it is not an hour it is 3 or 4 hours....and very worth the learn in my opinion.

[Morley]

Markk, I know I said I'd step back, but I'm going to inject a few words here, anyway.

To as someone who is outside of the field, as you are, I can kind of see why you'd go with this. You're going to just brush my comments aside, like you do everything else, but I need to make them anyway.

This hits a nerve with me because, though I've been out of education for a couple of decades, my doctorate is in educational leadership. A part of my academic research focused on what constitutes best practice in teaching as it's influenced by structural change. The specific structural change foci, for me, were changes in access to technology and modification of the school calendar. I actively advocated for both. At the time, one of my theories was that computer technology was going to revolutionize teaching, and that the most effective classrooms would, for the most part, be those that made the best use of technology. I pushed for school districts to install computer labs and for students to be required to spend time each day using computer-assisted instruction.

Long story short: After years of advocacy, I concluded that I was mostly wrong about these things. Changing the school calendar didn't provided better outcomes for students. Access to technology didn't have the desired effect of improving student learning.

Universities are adopting online teaching for the same reasons that they're gong with adjunct faculty instead of relying tenure-track teachers. It's not because it's more effective; it's because it's cheaper.

While you'd seemingly lecture educators on the most effective way to teach, you almost certainly would bristle if someone outside of your profession tried to tell you the best way to build an house.

I know this is going to be meaningless to you, because you believe that literally anyone can teach, produce world class art, understand psychology, and speak authoritatively about history. Ha! That's okay, I had to say it anyway.

Morley,

It funny how you guys don't read what I write, then form a strawman, and then you guys debate why I am wrong, about something I never said.

This is what I wrote to Gad.

Lol, well yes, there are historical documentaries and historical podcasts, and it is the future of learning more and more. We will have to see how A.I. impacts that. What it has to do with "anything"....it is just so telling of how you criticize what you haven't even experienced or tested.

Many of his podcast are very exhaustive, over 20 hours, so in that regard they are well researched, well produced, and very informative and one can learn a lot of history from them.

I did not say it is the best way to learn at all, or you can get a degree on them alone....I said it is more and more the future of learning. And I will die on that hill, it simply is a fact.

I will die on this hill also, podcasts and documentaries are extremely valuable tool in learning, as is the class room/lecture setting and experience. But it does not matter what the format is, if the person does not want to learn and apply themselves, they achieve their potential because they are lazy and don't want it. And as I wrote many posts back, it applies to teaching, there are lazy teachers and those that are committed to their craft.

And in that context....you and others are criticizing a persons work, that you are too lazy, or afraid, or too proud.... to even explore or test. It is a Joke. Morley if you listened to the Coal Miner podcast, you would change your mind about Cooper. And it is not an hour it is 3 or 4 hours....and very worth the learn in my opinion.

Markk, I did read what you wrote. And I read what you said to Gad. What you wrote is what I was responding to. Don't assume that you're not being read, just because you don't like what is given in reply.

I did not say it is the best way to learn at all, or you can get a degree on them alone....I said it is more and more the future of learning. And I will die on that hill, it simply is a fact.

I didn't claim that you said podcasts are the best way to learn. I'm responding to what you actually did say--that you know that historical documentaries and historical podcasts are the future of learning. I'm saying--very plainly--that they are NOT the future of learning. I presented a backstory as to why I reason as such.

Yes, I see that you're willing make that supposition based nothing but on your gut feeling. That is that same gut feeling that seems to undergird everything you have to say on this subject.

I also witness that you're willing to die on that empty, barren, God-forsaken hill. Where do you want your poor, dead body buried? On that same hill?

And in that context....you and others are criticizing a persons work, that you are too lazy, or afraid, or too proud.... to even explore or test. It is a Joke. Morley if you listened to the Coal Miner podcast, you would change your mind about Cooper. And it is not an hour it is 3 or 4 hours....and very worth the learn in my opinion.

You already made that same kind of promise on the Tucker interview video, and it turned out to be a lie. Why would you expect me to take that bait again? How many presentations of Cooper's do I have to listen to before I'm allowed to voice an opinion on him?