W
I tend to edit and proof read in direct proportion to the respect accorded
the person to whom I 'm responding, it it's a matter of a waste of time ya
know. I participate in an academic malinglist where almost all
participants are faculty with degrees up the gazoo and with many years of
research experience. Not one of them adds, either fore or aft, any of the
alphabet to their names. It is in one sense a matter of poor taste and to
do so would suggest that a poster needed it to punch up their standing in
some way and/or lacked something in their image of self or in possible
judgement from others. Andrew did a trivial observation trial and error
thing and made a big point of it as though serious research. The latter
is judged by concensus of what it is in the scientific community and not
his forced self definition of same. All the letters he wants to use, and
never fails to do so in absurdum, does not rescyue him from this reality
but does speak much of his current state. A s said, a more proper reason
for pity then humor upon reflection. It is clear he counts dearly upon
readers in newsgroups not knowing the difference, sorry to bring reality
into the discussion.
>Your top posting issues aside, most phd folk I have known demonstrate much
>higher levels of conversational ability.
>
>I am sorry if you feel my "distain" for your lies regarding your (lack of)
>educational qualifications fully demonstrated by the simple fact you can't
>spell. Maybe you use a different "alphebet" I bet. Maybe your nonsensical
>thought structure makes you the "weakist" link.
>
>I'm alphebetting you are a moron.
>
>On 07 Dec 2004 00:44:52 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> You have no knowledge at all of my suite of letters
>> to drape before and after my name. Most phd folk I have known show no
>> indication of such, it is in fact a cause for some distain from them when
>> seeing folk who have little but the alphebet to show for their efforts.
>> This is an example of the most childish display of hissy fit to consider.
>> Andrew does a bit of observation, thinks he sees a pattern, and calls it
>> science. Mr. hyde to the battle changes that not a whit. Because the
>> "pattern" is in it's weakist form by narrow definition of "data" serves
>> only to reflect upon him very very badly in several aspects that leads one
>> to pity after seeing that laughter is misplaced.
the person to whom I 'm responding, it it's a matter of a waste of time ya
know. I participate in an academic malinglist where almost all
participants are faculty with degrees up the gazoo and with many years of
research experience. Not one of them adds, either fore or aft, any of the
alphabet to their names. It is in one sense a matter of poor taste and to
do so would suggest that a poster needed it to punch up their standing in
some way and/or lacked something in their image of self or in possible
judgement from others. Andrew did a trivial observation trial and error
thing and made a big point of it as though serious research. The latter
is judged by concensus of what it is in the scientific community and not
his forced self definition of same. All the letters he wants to use, and
never fails to do so in absurdum, does not rescyue him from this reality
but does speak much of his current state. A s said, a more proper reason
for pity then humor upon reflection. It is clear he counts dearly upon
readers in newsgroups not knowing the difference, sorry to bring reality
into the discussion.
>Your top posting issues aside, most phd folk I have known demonstrate much
>higher levels of conversational ability.
>
>I am sorry if you feel my "distain" for your lies regarding your (lack of)
>educational qualifications fully demonstrated by the simple fact you can't
>spell. Maybe you use a different "alphebet" I bet. Maybe your nonsensical
>thought structure makes you the "weakist" link.
>
>I'm alphebetting you are a moron.
>
>On 07 Dec 2004 00:44:52 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> You have no knowledge at all of my suite of letters
>> to drape before and after my name. Most phd folk I have known show no
>> indication of such, it is in fact a cause for some distain from them when
>> seeing folk who have little but the alphebet to show for their efforts.
>> This is an example of the most childish display of hissy fit to consider.
>> Andrew does a bit of observation, thinks he sees a pattern, and calls it
>> science. Mr. hyde to the battle changes that not a whit. Because the
>> "pattern" is in it's weakist form by narrow definition of "data" serves
>> only to reflect upon him very very badly in several aspects that leads one
>> to pity after seeing that laughter is misplaced.