Prof. Tukur Sa’ad’s Obfuscation on Pantami’s Professorial Fraud
Someone called my attention to a response to my interventions on Pantami’s FUTO professorial fraud. It was supposedly written by a certain Professor Sa’ad Tukur who identifies himself as “a former Vice Chancellor.”
Someone called my attention to a response to my interventions on Pantami’s FUTO professorial fraud. It was supposedly written by a certain Professor Sa’ad Tukur who identifies himself as “a former Vice Chancellor.”
The long and short of the article is that non-academics with industry experience can be appointed to professorships. Haven’t I written exactly that in all my interventions? Has the man even read my articles before writing his?Or is he just engaging in what logicians call strawman
argumentation, that is, inventing a weak or sham argument that your opponent didn’t make in order to easily refute it? But Sa’ad undermined his own “defense” of Pantami’s fraud by admitting that, “I’m not saying Pantami can fit into the examples I gave.” So, why did he write?
To get attention? To justify whatever inducement he might have received from Pantami in Pantami’s desperation to validate his professorial fraud? Why would an academic of Sa’ad’s standing ridicule himself like that?
Expect a more elaborate response from me this Saturday.
Expect a more elaborate response from me this Saturday.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
