That is incorrect, gabriela. First of all, does someone need to be “in your field” to question your accuracy? And once such a question is raised, are not facts and logic the lingua franca, regardless of stated areas of expertise? And that, more than anything, leads to why I view you with suspicion. When you are verifiably wrong, you call it a disagreement and chirp, “let’s agree to disagree.”
No, I’m a shepherd. I clearly have no evidence of any sort that you are a fraud, and do not pretend to have it. All I have is the fact that you occasionally speak from a position of expertise, get one wrong, and then react to questions about your accuracy in a way that I feel is unscientific. You could still be a Nobel Laureate for all I know.
I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t recall ever taking issue with the origin of your cites. In fact I don’t recall you providing many of any sort. You must be thinking of someone else.
You could have Tuba act as midwife during the delivery of a yours and Ed’s lovechild and then make Lynn godmother, and it wouldn’t make a whit of difference. Would having a couple admins vouch for you make your posts any more or less accurate? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t encourage you to do this, and I wonder why you feel it would be worthwhile.
Wait a minute! You, for all intent and purposes, accuse her of being a fraud, not in this thread only, but also in others I have seen, and when she tries to clean her reputation you say you don’t care?
It is one thing to say that somebody is wrong, or lousy at what they do for a living, but accusing her of pretending to be what she is not is something serious, so if you don’t care you should stop the veiled accusations.
Sheesh, Waverly, you are hard to please.
Ever since I read your post this morning, I’ve been thinking of various aspects of my job, which I am damn good at, that a newbie or outsider might ask me about and if skeptical-minded, make a spot judgement that I am a huge poseur because I didn’t give the answer he expected.
There are also many issues on which I have mild disagreements with my esteemed colleagues. When these insoluble problems crop up, we agree to disagree. gabriela, I am very impressed with your diplomacy skills.
Gabbys back!
::: does happy dance:::
Welcome back dear, I missed you. As others have said, you are smart, funny and write a great post.
Waverly you are being a jerk. Mighty_Girl nailed it. Put up or shut up.
I will be happy to be the checker of backgrounds/certifications/affiliations. I don’t have a dog in this fight except I am glad to see the lovely Gabriela back posting.
Rick, this is MPSIMS, not the Pit. Personal insults don’t belong here.
Waverly, Q.E.D… if you want to question the veracity of someone’s claims (at least, at the level you’re taking it), please do so in the Pit. MPSIMS really isn’t the place for it. Let’s get this thread back on track.
This is a gross mischaracterization of what I said. I said I had no evidence at all that she was a fraud. I said I don’t have any; I don’t plan to have any. I don’t plan to spend a lot of time thinking about it. What I took issue with was her posting style on several occasions, and I said that I personally didn’t think it was consistent with her stated expertise. That is a much different thing.
I guess it’s true that I don’t care, but you are assuming I don’t care for the wrong reasons. I don’t care because concrete bone fides aren’t going to change what I think about some of her posts.
I have NOT called anyone a fraud. It isn’t the time or the place for such an extreme accusation.
On preview: no problem, Skip. I’ll bow out of this thread.
And I wasn’t the only one that misinterpreted you then, in more than one thread.
So, let’s see. You are not an expert yourself. It is possible that even experts question her conclusions without questioning her expertise (I’ve seen too many episodes of Cold Cases to know that COD get changed from time to time after being examined by another forensic expert). Experts go to court and argue each other’s conclusion all the time, and I would guess both the prosecution and the defense would check their certifications.
So here you come, and self-confesed non-expert, who disagree with her and instead of concluding that a)you could be wrong, b)she could be wrong or c)she’s not a real expert (by expert I suppose you mean certification, anything else is not being an expert).
This is the deal, if you don’t intend to follow through with it I expect you to stop going from thread to thread doing this. (I’ve seen three cases in which you’ve sorta, kinda, suggested that maybe it is possible that perhaps she is not “an expert”, of course you mean it in the nicest way). :rolleyes:
Mighty_Girl, I’ve already asked Waverly to move it to the Pit (if he so chooses); it wouldn’t be fair to allow you to continue the debate when he’s been asked to keep it out of the thread and can’t defend himself.
