17 March 2006: The coiner of "pretentiodemic" has now told me he wasn't using that word to criticize me, "just having fun with words." He thinks the term I want for seriously flawed academic "would have to combine pretentious with mechanical." He hadn't been able to think of a good combination of them, though. For me, though, the worst flaw of the "mechademics" I was talking about is their very mechanical and obtuse (but not always pretentious) cling to what their predecessors have said and done. However, I now see that there are all sorts of "malcademics," my mechademics and my reader's pretentiodemic being just two of them. Those I most want a term for are the ones who propose moronic hypotheses that are incoherent, trivial, and founded on bits from dozens of other academics (not all of whom are necessarily malcademics) taken out of context. Lunademic? Abcademic? I think maybe I should just use the adjectival form of my previous coinage with "mechademic" for such a person: "acaselectinnexational mechademic."
Okay, yes, I see that if I were seriously to use such a term, I just might seem loonier than those I applied it to. And now that "acaselectinnexation" has had time to soak a while in my reason, such as it is, I perceive that mayhap "acaselectation" might be a better coinage. I regret the loss of "annexation," which nicely suggests the aggression of acaselectators, but will have to bear it, I guess. No, maybe I'll go with "academented malcitation." Or "academentappropriation?"
"Academented citation" actually should do. Ergo, one who proposes a moronic hypothesis that is incoherent, trivial, and founded on bits from dozens of other academics (not all of whom are necessarily malcademics) taken out of context wopuld simply be a mechademic guilty of academented citation . . . ry.