Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 29 Jan 2010 09:55 In article <bd2a7183-1bb3-45af-9786-e1c1ac0cb5c2(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Jan 28, 5:52�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article > > <022a7458-93d1-4faa-bfe9-959493f80...(a)r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 6:25�pm, "Moderate" <sparky@ engineer .com> wrote: > > > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > > > > >news:clark-0CE54A.14174927012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > In article > > > > > <9997bb8b-6499-482d-9e17-c3be2bbe1...(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Jan 27, 9:32 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > > >> state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >> > No, because this is not an issue about "bets". It seems to me that > > > > >> > you > > > > >> > are trying this as a crude attempt to frighten off any scrutiny of > > > > >> > your > > > > >> > bogus claim to have a) attended any materials science meetings, > > > > >> > and b) > > > > >> > to have " at least one material sciences publication in a well > > > > >> > respected > > > > >> > symposium". I simply don't believe you, and in the world of > > > > >> > academia > > > > >> > such differences of opinion are discussed in the open, with no > > > > >> > talk of > > > > >> > "bets". > > > > > > >> > So, are you going to abide by the standards of academia that you > > > > >> > claim > > > > >> > to uphold so strongly? My guess is you won't. > > > > > > >> Reality is in no way subservient to what you choose to believe. > > > > >> There > > > > >> is no opinion at issue here, only a point of fact. Either I have or > > > > >> have not published in the area of materials science, and the fact is > > > > >> or isn't independent of what you think. > > > > > > > Obviously, then, you have NOT published in the field of materials > > > > > science, nor have you attended any materials science conferences or > > > > > symposia, and all this is simply hot air and bluster. Now we all > > > > > know. > > > > > > Obviously? �What scientific method did you use? > > > > > None, he has just decided....... > > > > Actually, it's a scientific smell test, that spots a whopper a mile off. > > Now, how about: > > > > a) those materials science symposia, and > > > > b) that paper you published in a materials science journal? > > > > Neither of these really exists, does it? > > The most interesting aspect of this is your great concern. IF you take > the position that I have never published anything in the area of > materials science, you become, as a point of fact, a liar. It is not > just a matter of being misinformed, because my CV was published online > and available for many years, for anyone to see. This is simply bizarre. If you have published in the materials science filed, just provide a reference. I have no time to spend burrowing through stuff on ferns to find ti - if it exists. > > What is more relevant is that your concern suggests that you are > unpublished, or publish little in the area, isn't it, and it bothers > you because you think there is some sort of academic status associated > with who employs you in this business, when in fact academic status is > solely a function of your accomplishments. Wrong again - my publication count is close t 200 in peer reviewed journals. Another straw man shot down. > > Now as I claim zero status as a materials scientist, and I claim none, > it becomes a problem for you that I have published in the area, > because you want to claim some sort of status here, when you, like I, > have none! You have yet to prove that you have "published in the area". I don't believe you have, but you have a simple way to prove me wrong. > > In any event, the $5K bet is still open. Trying scare tactics to cover up your deception? Really? Here it is: I do not believe you have either a) attended any materials science symposia, or b) published in any materials science journals. Prove me wrong if you can.
From: William Clark on 29 Jan 2010 09:58 In article <MPG.25ccb4457acbf6f3989add(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <bd2a7183-1bb3-45af-9786-e1c1ac0cb5c2 > @b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostback2002(a)att.net says... > > > > The most interesting aspect of this is your great concern. IF you take > > the position that I have never published anything in the area of > > materials science, you become, as a point of fact, a liar. It is not > > just a matter of being misinformed, because my CV was published online > > and available for many years, for anyone to see. > > > > What is more relevant is that your concern suggests that you are > > unpublished, or publish little in the area, isn't it, and it bothers > > you because you think there is some sort of academic status associated > > with who employs you in this business, when in fact academic status is > > solely a function of your accomplishments. > > > > Now as I claim zero status as a materials scientist, and I claim none, > > it becomes a problem for you that I have published in the area, > > because you want to claim some sort of status here, when you, like I, > > have none! > > > > In any event, the $5K bet is still open. > > I have a $1US that says Billy doesn't take your bet. Damn right I am not. This is not an issue for "bets", this is about the core of academic integrity. He is claiming to have attended meetings and published in a field where it is absolutely clear he has not. George O'Leary lost his job for doing exactly the same thing, but I am sure your wingnut double standards can find a way around that.
From: Howard Brazee on 29 Jan 2010 10:35 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:34:53 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >> Plans where you have to pay extra to see a doctor outside of the plan's >> approved network. Plans where you have to pay extra if you don't want to >> have to go through a family doctor in order to see a specialist. And so >> on. > >A very good point. In the US, you pay extra to see a doctor outside a >network. In Canada, you are restricted to the one doctor who has >accepted you as a patient; period. You are limited to that person's >knowledge and skills; period. Certainly Canadians can spend their own money to see US physicians, so your statement isn't 100% correct. Are all Canadian physicians limited to only treating those patients assigned to them by the state? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: assimilate on 29 Jan 2010 10:49 On 29-Jan-2010, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/01/26/consumer-home-affordability.html > > > > it isn't > > Yes, Bill: one of the most beautiful cities in the world with limited > land because of its setting between the mountains and the sea has high > prices for housing... > > ...because demand is high. well there you have it -- bill-o
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 29 Jan 2010 10:57
On Jan 29, 9:58 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article <MPG.25ccb4457acbf6f3989...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <bd2a7183-1bb3-45af-9786-e1c1ac0cb5c2 > > @b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostback2...(a)att.net says... > > > > The most interesting aspect of this is your great concern. IF you take > > > the position that I have never published anything in the area of > > > materials science, you become, as a point of fact, a liar. It is not > > > just a matter of being misinformed, because my CV was published online > > > and available for many years, for anyone to see. > > > > What is more relevant is that your concern suggests that you are > > > unpublished, or publish little in the area, isn't it, and it bothers > > > you because you think there is some sort of academic status associated > > > with who employs you in this business, when in fact academic status is > > > solely a function of your accomplishments. > > > > Now as I claim zero status as a materials scientist, and I claim none, > > > it becomes a problem for you that I have published in the area, > > > because you want to claim some sort of status here, when you, like I, > > > have none! > > > > In any event, the $5K bet is still open. > > > I have a $1US that says Billy doesn't take your bet. > > Damn right I am not. This is not an issue for "bets", this is about the > core of academic integrity. He is claiming to have attended meetings and > published in a field where it is absolutely clear he has not. George > O'Leary lost his job for doing exactly the same thing, but I am sure > your wingnut double standards can find a way around that. If claiming that you have done something you have not is a serious issue, then a false accusation of such should be equally serious, should it not? If so, then you should be fired. |