Re: How to get into Scientific Programming

Please excuse me if I am nosing in where I do not belong.  I'm not exactly
sure about the argument here, but I was hoping I might help by using the
word "debate," rather than "address" or "attack."  It appears you are having
a good, healthy debate of the issues about professors and their tenure.

Please cast me aside without ridicule if I am posting where I am not needed.

Nonetheless, you are very interesting to read!!

Kavon
"William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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
>
>
>