I am not necessarily supporting Zoe’s opinion that you are lying about your credentials. However, the only example you have given of her “misrepresentation” is in this post, which is the one where you say that she states you have a PhD in writing, and that this is a false statement.
She then linked to a post where you quite plainly stated that you have a PhD in writing.
You actually say in the post that I linked to that you wouldn’t want to be banned because of what Zoe asserts that you have claimed…BUT YOU CLAIMED IT! She was exactly quoting a statement you made about your credentials. She didn’t “misinterpret” what you said…it was a direct quote.
Do you have any other examples of how you believe she has misrepresented you?
I will certainly not permit anyone to pursue such a campaign in Great Debates.
Have you reported her behavior to the Pit Mods? Or were you concerned that her posts looked too much like your own?
I do encourage Zoe to knock it off. It is not doing her reputation any good and her queries are pretty much irrelevant. The absolute worst charge of which it appears that you might be “guilty” would be resume padding–if that. Hardly a crime for which one should be badgered at length.
I realize that. That’s why I’ve noted that what I termed her mistatement in that case is my responsibility, for summarizing. Believe me, you don’t want the full Latin version the diploma’s written in, not that I’m even positive of where I stuck it.
There are no further examples THAT I CARE TO SUPPLY IN PUBLIC of Zoe’s misstatements, but my challenge stands. I suppose I’m just trying to stipulate that I’m talking about substantial mistatements of fact. (As an an example, which does not apply to the facts here, If I’d written that I had a doctoral degree, and Zoe claimed I had falsely claimed to hold a Ph. D. when in fact I held an Ed.D, I am not offering to accept banning if the exact description of my degree didn’t match Zoe’s misstated version of it, and I don’t think the Mods would judge my not correcting Zoe to be a substantive false claim on my part. She’s messed up some things, though, and not with any help from me.) She;s made a habit of persisting claiming vicoties as she’s made an idiot out of herself in post after post, where I haven’t always followed up in pointing out the level of her self-mortification. One example would be the recent post where she criticized me for steeotypically assuming that cities in the South have conservative judges, whereas I was demonstrabley referring to Cisco’s rural hometown hat he described as explicitly “conservative.”
In short, do you really want to spend more energy supporting a stalker when you’ve been so critical yourselves of stalking behavior otherwise? It kinda makes you look like hypocrites, and all, instead of people with a case to make.
No. I don’t really care, and since I defended badchad’s pursuit of Polycarp, I’m hardly in a position to shriek about her foolishness.
But did Polycarp report badchad’s stalking to you in any sort of formal way? Or did you take it on yourself to come to his defense?
It was my impression that you were more of a self-starter than the Pit Mods are being here.
And if you have any specific way you think I’ve padded my resume (as opposed to summarizing it for the convenience of my readers), please do let me know.
You are right, I’m sure I could not figure out the Latin in a million years. I’m sure you understand it, and that’s good enough for me.
I don’t see how you can expect people to take your statements at face value, when so many of them have been shown to be untrue, and you are not willing to support them with cites.
If you say so, but come on…the one example you gave proved to be a bad one, by your own admission.
I did see that, and I agree that she jumped to an erroneous conclusion there.
I’m not convinced that Zoe is stalking you. And I don’t recall ever having said anything about anyone stalking anyone.
Polycarp never reported any action of badchad in GD that I recall. badchad declared that he was stalking Polycarp during his first period of posting, even starting a thread, himself, expressly to point that out. badchad then used a statement excerpted from an exchange between those two as a sig line in his recent sojourn. It was hardly necessary for Polycarp to call official attention of the staff to that particular activity. More recently, badchad actually bragged about “selecting” Polycarp for special attention.
On the other hand, your insistence that I have only been “defending” Polycarp is another of your inventions.
I have undertaken no action to “come to [Polycarp’s] defense” and I am not really sure why you keep promoting that canard.
As I have already pointed out, my objections to badchad were that he attempted to make every discussion with any believer into a personal attack. I have also criticized other aspects of his posting that I will not repost since they have already been pointed out up thread and he is no longer here to defend himself. I really do not understand why you continue to misrepresent both my actions and my statements–particularly while providing no evidence.
Psuedo, I am a little confused here. I agree Zoe seemed to have developed an unhealthy obsession with you lately, but she did catch you in a major inconsistency for something where you said she was lying.
You owe her a stronger apology for calling her a liar earlier.
As far as Tom, can you cite where he came specifically to **Polycarp’s ** defense. I would like to see some examples?
She is a liar. She says that I’m falsely claiming to hold credentials and a position I don’t hold, when in fact I do, and have challenged her to report me as a troll, which she has refused to do. She’s lied so often (and so irrelevantly) about me over the past few months that I don’t owe her apologies for calling her a liar, because
SHE IS A LIAR.
Tom came to Polycarp’s defense when, without Polycarp asking for his help, he took it on himself to chastise badchad for taking pleasure in having made Poly reconsider some of his positions, including his posting frequency. Rude? Sure. Uncalled for? Maybe. But he’s supposed to moderate GD, not enforce etiquette laws. If badchad’s making an asshole out of himself, that will be how people know him, and Tom generally allows people in GD to diminish their own reputations rather than engage on behalf of someone he sympathizes with. Just not this time. It was impossible for me to tell when he was acting as a Mod and when he was acting as a furiously engaged debator. That’s not good.
Thank you for the answers. I guess I would have to see where she was lying about you as opposed to just making accusations. I understand your anger at her. She has been gunning for you and I do not know why. I can see this as a bystander.
I appreciate your opinion of what you say **Tom ** did, but I am not sure if it was outside the job of a mod. If one poster is going after another poster non-stop and in rude fashion, it is proper for a mod to step in and ask the offending poster to cool his jets.
Indeed, if I were a mod, I would probably ask you cool your jets about Tom and I would verify your credentials so I could tell Zoe, everything is kosher* and to stop harassing you. So I guess we have different viewpoints on what a Mod’s job is. For the record, I believe you are who you say you are and I think Zoe is acting as badly towards you as you are towards Tom. Neither of you are acting as badly as **BC ** acted towards Poly.
Jim
Please excuse the phrase; I use it in a non-religious way as it mostly clearly expresses my meaning.
Psst, hey Zoe, look at best you caught prr in a minor lack of clarity. Let it go.You’re better than that. Drop it.
pseudotriton ruber ruber: I do not claim you are a liar. But you are an apologist and a buttkisser to someone we won’t mention for a while.
You’re fairly smart, and you do OK on your own. Why have your entire SDMB rep built on being “that guys” apologist and buttkisser? Strike out on your own. State your own opinions. You can do it. I have, umm, err faith in you.
Doctorates are not degrees that are given out lightly nor are they degrees that are earned easily. To say that you did all the work and hard labor necessary to earn a doctorate degree and now to say that you just can’t remember what you got it in just doesn’t sound kosher to me. Sorry … but it just isn’t that difficult a thing to think that you might remember.
Okay, rather than continue to argue about this, I think I’ll look in the cabinet where I remember putting the diploma in in the early 1990s, and see if it turns up.
Huh. You know what? I found it, and it doesn’t specify what the degree is in. Just “Doctor of Philosophy.”
So the actual diploma (which turns out to be in English–I must have been remembering my undergrad diploma as being written in Latin) doesn’t help. I guess it’s up to me to self-describe what my coursework was in, what exams I took, what my dissertation was on,etc. which is what I’ve been doing IRL and life, and being able to supply transcripts, letters of recommendation, etc to support those claims where needed.
You can always report me, Eutychus, if you think I’m making any of this up. It’s easy, there’s this little red button right up there. I dont want you to be doubting my word.
I’m not completely convinced that you’re making it all up. But you have to admit that when you go from claiming to have a degree in English Literature, then here seeming to not even be sure what a degeree in English Literature entails, and then to top it off, here not even being sure whether it’s in English or American Literature … even to the most casual of readers little red lights start to go off.
It IS a complicated degree, and I haven’t applied for a job in a very long time or done more than glance at that section of my c.v. in almost as long, so I’ve been posting summations of my background that can seem contradictory to people not in my specific field. I understand why you might be dubious, as opposed to Zoe and a few other posters who are merely being malicious stalking jerks, apparently not so serious an offense for some as it is for others. Hope I’ve begun to clarify your legitimate inquiry. LMK if I can make things any clearer for you.
As to this, when I was typing out the words “…in English” I realized that this must signify the language, not the country, since most of my advanced work was in American Literature. But all my work was performed in the Department of English (there was no Department of American Literature, though I took my final oral exam exclusively in American Lit.) Like I said, it looks a little complicated to someone not actually in my field, and even there not everyone gets every wrinkle immediately.
Say, do you think I should open up an “Ask the English prof and Ph.d” thread? I could answer your questions at length there, and really put it on the line whether I’m posing as something I’m not? I mean, they’d all but have to ban me for trolling if I opened up a thread like that and told a few whoppers, wouldn’t they?
I’d kind of like to see an “Ask the English Prof and Ph.D” thread. prr, I give you my word that, if you start such a thread I for one will bring no snark or disrespect to it.
I will be upfront though in saying that I don’t understand why a person in such a position would see fit to set such low standards of grammar, structure and content for his or her posts on a message board. Every single writer I know personally tends to hold similar standards for their grocery lists as they do for their published work. (This, admittedly, is not a large sample.)
I also realize that time constraints, anger and equipment (PDA’s, etc.) can all be causes for brevity and lack of care. I believe a properly moderated “Ask the…” thread might be good medicine for any on-line community relationships you care about (not that I’m assuming you care one way or the other). And you know by now that tom~ will prevent a trainwreck.
I have, umm, err faith in you. 