You hear that? Your friends dont' need it, your enemies wont accept it? I see movies all the time where a good explanation would fix tinges but the hero wont give one. I sit threes saying "explain, explain" but they don't, and if they did it would preempt the plot, so they can't. The plot turns on a sting silent type who wont explain. Doubting my John Wayne like qualities I've deiced that I should explain things. My friends aren't that good, they need explanations all the time. (I'm teasing I have a lot of really great friends).
While following "came from" pages on my log I found a message OT the summer temporary boards (DOXA Forum) by a guy named seismic whom I don't even remember, accusing me of laying about my credentials:
Yeah it's all about credibility isn't it mega? You can't even keep your lies straight.
I can't wait to tell the gang back at apologetics. Oh and by the way mega, don't bother to pull your little Bo about your Ph.D. candidacy. I've already copy/pasted it to Word. I'm going to post it for all to see.
I can only assume he means the apologetic board at CRAM. I wonder if the distinction between candidacy and having a Ph.D. would even be meaningful to him. The disintcition is nebulous really. Being a candidate doesn't' mean you just enrolled in the program and you have seven more years to go. It means you've finished everything and you are on the door step, the only things left to go are formalities. Turning in the written dissertation and dog oral exams are formalities. Almost no one ever flounces orals. If you don't have together by that stage it's pretty much hopeless.
Now I doubt that I said "Yes, I have a Ph.D. because I've graduated from graduate school and am now officially Dr. Joe and I never have to take any courses again in my life because I officially have the sheep skin with letters after my name."
But this is basically true, but in an unofficial way. I have only to Finnish writing the dissertation and take oral examinations and that's it. Now I tell people I'm a professional academic, that's what I said. I am. I have worked as a teaching assistant and been paid for giving students grades; more importantly I published an academic journal (peer reviewed and indexed--which puts it on the map as official) and published, present papers at conferences, and most important; that's my chosen profession and I'm doing all I can at the moment to proceed with making it a reality.
My Bio says: "Ph.D. course work and dissertation completed," the one tiny untruth about that is, yes, I am actually a couple of chapters short. I have finished 90% of the dissertation and have to Finnish a couple of chapters. The bit about courses is absolutely true. I finished all the course work years ago, and I've finished geberak qualifying exams as well. I am in the stage known as "ABD" (all but dissertation). One is allowed to apply for jobs as a professor in that stage.
If that's not good enough to be thought of as smart or having some expertise then I suggest those who question my expertise my critics are lacking to begin with. I mean if people can't see that I'm conversant with major subjects and the metals that make up those issues, then what's the point of having letters after your name anyway.
I'm sure this guy was bested in an argument and he has to get even. he can't just go read some and learn more or look up the things I said to see that I'm right. He has to quibble over my worthiness. Do I have letter after my name, why no I must because I disagreed with him?
This really makes me angry because people are so narrow and petty. But more importantly because he's not willing to learn anything. His lack of knowledge that puts him beneither me in some way (if I have the papers, in his mind) is to him not a matter of his learning more, it's a matter of me lying or being somehow untruthful about my station. Why can't he just go the damn library and start studying?