Re: How to get into Scientific Programming

"Baruch Vainas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> > You need  a new dictionary, "attacked" != "addressed".
>
> The straw-man raises its ugly head. I did not say that "attacked" and
> "addressed" are literally equivalent, William.

Then why did you think my comment about addressing one of your
arguments though I hadn't quoted it was the same as your referring
to my arguments - unquoted - as "[a] tiresome repetition of a
description of an extremely miserable academic activity in the USA,
real or imaginary"

Specifically the part I deleted dealt with other things professors could
do at a university besides corporate funded research. For example,
you said, "The worst that can happen to him [a tenured professor] is
that he will be asked to do some more teaching and apply to more state
funded research grants."

And when you complained about my deleting that, I explained how my
reply to another part of that paragraph - which was quoted - covered
that point as well:

W|  Deleted but addressed. Professors who don't do original research
W|  often find themselves not teaching, or not teaching anything worth
W|  while (to them). That's what I meant by "marginalized" - it's still a
W|  publish or perish world, tenure or not.

Apparently you didn't get the implication of what "marginalized" could
mean.

> You deleted evidence that was used to attack your argument.

As you can see, what I deleted wasn't evidence, it was a supporting
argument which I deemed sufficiently subordinate to your main point:
"A Prof with a tenure that doesn't have much contract money doesn't
go out of business." that I could cover it by quoting and directly
addressing that part. (I leared to trim quoted material back in the 80s
when bandwidth was at a premium; I still think it's worthwhile.)

> However, your brand of "addressing" here, functionally at least, isn't
> much different from an attack. The evidence you deleted was directly
> attacking your main point. "Addressing" deleted evidence by, in fact,
> disregarding what I said isn't much different from aggressively
> suppressing somebody trying to make his point.

As I said, I didn't disregard it, I thought I covered it. When you balked,
I further explained why I thought that. I still don't think you've got this
"address" vs. "attack" thing down. -Wm