My Publication and Teaching Record Demonstrates that I’m Fluent in Reading and Writing in Various of Types of English Texts. Mr. Lundahl’s Record in This Debate Demonstrates That His Literacy Needs Improvement
Kevin R. Henke
November 12, 2022
As shown on my website, I posted a series of essays (Henke 2022fn through Henke 2022gb) on September 23, 2022. These essays were in response to various comments in Lundahl (2022q).
Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022w) responds to some of these September 23 essays. In the following section, he complains about my reading abilities:
Especially egregious as Mr. Henke shows himself unable to read English.
me
In order for miracles not to contradict the already known knowledge for natural law, it is sufficient if "the supernatural" can do them without violating natural laws, it is absolutely not necessary for God to be unable to undo them. You see, as long as you do not have as a fact that miracle so and so needed to go through the agencies normally described by natural law, and went through them in ways that broke these laws (which by now are part of our knowledge), you cannot validly argue against the veracity of the miraculous accounts from these miracles, if occurring, contradicting natural laws.
Henke
It's difficult to know exactly what Lundahl (2022q) is trying to say in the second paragraph. He needs to write better. ...
No, it is Mr. Henke who needs to read better. He's showing off his illiteracy. Not illiteracy in modern Academic essays, but illiteracy outside this and similar types.
As shown in Henke (2022aq), my long and peer-reviewed publication record demonstrates that I am proficient in both reading and writing in English.
It demonstrates that Mr. Henke is proficient in reading and writing a certain type of English. Any English falling outside that type, even if it is SBE or SAE, even if it follows all the finesse of English grammar, will be hard to read for a man who like Mr. Henke knows one type of texts, or at best a somewhat narrow range of types.
Mr. Lundahl’s frequently rambling texts, misspellings and poor referencing demonstrates that he is not.
Referencing isn't a writing skill. It is a service sometimes given by writers, but far from always. There are to record two misspellings according to Mr. Henke's view, "carreer" - not found in OED, I will arguably have to say carreere instead - and transsubstantiation, where I am using the etymological convention rather than "doubled consonants simplify next to other consonant" convention. The third item he complained about was a parallel word formation to an existing word, so a lack of knowing all the relevant words there are.
Now, rambling is a writing skill. The earliest newspapers that featured Essays in English were The Tatler and The Rambler.
Not being able to read rambling texts is a lack of reading skills.”
No, Mr. Lundahl, my publication and teaching record demonstrates that I’m fluent in various types of English texts, as long as, the writer is competent (see Henke (2022aq). As I stated in Henke (2022aq):
“I’ve also been a peer-reviewer for a number of chemistry and geology journals. The quality of the papers that I’ve reviewed has greatly varied. Unfortunately, I’ve encountered a number of authors that had horrible skills in technical English and that were unwilling to take the necessary constructive criticism. Mr. Lundahl is just like them.”
The record in this debate clearly demonstrates that Mr. Lundahl has a huge problem with being able to communicate in English. He still uses incorrect spelling with “carreere” (Henke 2022L), uses undefined acronyms (Henke 2022p), does not providing adequate referencing (Henke 2022f) and simply does not write clearly (e.g., the unnecessary use of double negatives). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Mr. Lundahl’s favorite, rambling refers to being unsystematic and without definite aim. Mr. Lundahl’s writing is often rambling because it’s disorganized and frequently goes off on unnecessary and ambiguous tangents. Contrary to Lundahl (2022w), rambling is a deficiency and not a “writing skill.” Rambling does not belong in this debate. No reasonable person wants to read such chaotic writing. This debate involves a lot of science, history and other technical subjects, and it’s clear that Mr. Lundahl simply does not have the skills to communicate effectively in this format. Furthermore, he fails to realize that for technical debates, such as this one, the use of peer-reviewed references and proper referencing are not options, but absolute requirements. Worst of all, Mr. Lundahl refuses to listen to criticism and improve his writing abilities.
A further example of Mr. Lundahl’s disorganized writing and his inability to properly cite my works is seen in the very above quoted section from Lundahl (2022w):
“As shown in Henke (2022aq), my long and peer-reviewed publication record demonstrates that I am proficient in both reading and writing in English.”
Although Mr. Lundahl does not bother to indicate who said this statement, it’s obvious from the context that I said it. However, even worse, Mr. Lundahl does not properly indicate where this quotation came from in my numerous essays in this debate. Based on the position of this quotation in Lundahl (2022w), readers might think that it’s more of Mr. Lundahl's quotations from Henke (2022fr). It’s not. It’s from an entirely different essay, Henke (2022fz). I’m not being unnecessarily picky here. Mr. Lundahl has serious problems with properly referencing his sources and this does not help our readers at all to check his references for validity, as I further explained in Henke (2022f). In Henke (2022gL), I further commented on Mr. Lundahl’s unsubstantiated accusations against my reading skills, as well as his unwillingness to discuss his publication and teaching record, if he has any. As I further stated in Henke (2022gL):
“Also, what qualifications does Mr. Lundahl have for judging my ability to read and write in English on non-science subjects or formats? When I taught, I read all kinds of essays and I had to write and teach in English for non-science majors. As well as effectively communicating with my peer scientists, I had to explain complicated concepts to thousand of students that knew nothing about science. I did this very successfully as was seen with my evaluations and my students’ scores on tests, quizzes and homework. It’s not my reading and writing abilities that are the problems in this debate, it’s Mr. Lundahl’s inability to write clearly and his unwillingness to spell correctly, find and use suitable references, and carefully understand what others and I say (e.g., Henke 2022f through 2022p, Henke 2022ao, Henke 2022ch, Henke 2022cj, Henke 2022ef).”