Posted on 09/28/2018 2:04:01 PM PDT by grundle
Link only:
Her work will be available to them and her background research may have triggered the need to get FBI involved.
I have seen it stated elsewhere on FR that her PhD was in Educational Psychology. Educational Psych. (which would usually lead to EduD, or Doctor of Education) is very different, in my experience, from either scientific experimental psychology or clinical psychology. They use the same terms, but with different meanings; they have different theories of learning and memory, which could be why Dr. Ford's attempt to use technical jargon about memory sounded like gobbledygook to me. I had the same problem in the Education courses I took towards getting my teaching certificate.
So, which is it: a degree in Psychology, or Educational Psychology?
I looked at this website and it seems that of the 82 research papers by Blasey, I could not find one that was written just by her. It appears that she was always a co-author.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey
Stay with me ... with the quick FBI investigation the President just ordered, CBF would most likely be unavailable for comment. BUT, those questions were already asked and answered under questioning by Rachel Mitchell.
Co-authoring is common with papers from universities. Most are thesis reports from graduate students reporting on their thesis work. The student advising professor will be a co-author. The student gets his thesis published and the advisor gets most of the work done by the student while accumulating a lengthy resume of published papers.
Thanks for the clarification.
Some of her student-submitted reviews were available on line last week. They were almost all damning. One even stated that you'll need large doses of drugs to get through her course.
Am hearing you
Di Fi recommended at least one of the probimbo lawyers.
FFFFFFords father and grandfather were CIA
Di Fis husband is on the board of the college where she teaches. She also teaches a CIA internship class at a neighboring college.
LIndsey pointed out two dings on her lawyer.
1 they didn’t tell her committee would come to her (thus forcing it to be public )
2. They had access to the letter that was leaked
Their connections to left wing are easy access.
....those questions were already asked and answered under questioning by Rachel Mitchell.
—
And, under oath.
Those reviews were for a different Prof Ford/different college....not for Blasey-FFFFord.
EXACTLY!
Signed, sealed, done deal.
Little confused here. My Ph.D. program did not award Master’s degrees along the way ,unless you didn’t pass your comps. Then you were given a terminal Master’s with no possibility of continuing in the program. How did she get two Master’s before her Ph.D.?
A little unorthodox.
“boarder-line “??? Would that be a line of people waiting for breakfast?
A preposition is not a word to end a sentence with.
A position up with which I will not put.
I noticed that you used "nominative" instead of "subjective" to describe what I believe is formally called the subjective case in English. Evidently "nominative" can be descriptive and properly applied this way. I doubt that "accusative" could be substituted for "objective".
Much of what I think I know about grammar comes from exposure to Latin. My daughter is a linguist and it is fun to discuss grammatical details with her.
Now it's time to read the linked article.
After I posted about the dangling preposition it suddenly occurred to me that I might have mistakenly been looking at a split infinitive.
I had a high school English teacher who assured us that, if we mastered the material she was teaching us, the day would come that we would wince when reading improper grammar. She was right.
Your example is one which demonstrates that proper grammar is sometimes so rare that the correct sentence sounds very awkward.
And each of these terms get mixed up depending upon which Language (e.g. German or Russian) and who wrote the text since some authors try to make it simple for people who know these terms in English by using the same terms for these parts of speech in other languages. So I am trying not to get hung up on the terminology, but rather the author's lack of understanding of what is actually correct usage in various circumstances.
Item 5.
Ford evidently wrote: “Both were 1-2 years older than me and students at a local private school.”
The critics suggested a better version: “Both were 1-2 years older than myself and other students at a local private school.”
I believe that Ford's intended meaning was, “Both were 1-2 years older than me and both were students at a local private school.”
The point being that "both" were not older than "students at a private school". They were the "students at a local private school".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.