The only reason I'm being so annoying about this stuff is because you - more than anyone I've ever seen on FR - feel compelled to bludgeon us over the head with your credentials. Why?
I have been truly blessed. I can't help it if some are intimidated by that. Some with PhDs around here have acted as though they know-it-all. Enough folks without PhDs like yourself have done the same. I've often called their bluff. It’s the put up or shut up moment. As Rush Limbaugh himself has often quoted Dizzy Dean as saying: “ it ain't braggin' if you can do it. “
But you've engaged in arguments with plenty of people here on other issues where you trot out your degrees.
And that should bother you why exactly?
I do so generally only where an opponent has made intelligence or one's education a matter of the discussion. You did so on this thread. Asked me directly where I went to school in fact, and then you’ve feverishly driven yourself to plow through ~1200 of my postings here on FR in a vain attempt to find some inconsistency.
You’ve chosen to immerse yourself in an awful lot of detail about me. Now, some around here consider that stalking. I don’t happen to see it that way. I posted. You’re reading it. I’m flattered. When I happen to mention my degrees it can and does shut down a lot of bloviators, because they’re talking to someone who can likely call their bluff on what they pretend to know about matters related to life sciences. Kind of like you. Like I said: It ain't braggin' if you can do it.
Does it often annoy you that many "flyover" conservatives look negatively upon the advanced degreed?
I don't believe that statement is true, nor do I agree with your premise. Those that harbor a spirit of envy might look negatively for sure. Clearly you are annoyed. I don’t particularly care. One would hope that conservatives are the ones with such advanced educational credentials. Perhaps you believe only liberals can have such credentials. Is a lack of credentials the way you have chosen to distinguish yourself from liberals?
Moreover, you also are sure to let the FR world know you make a healthy 6-figure salary. While I find that commendable, does it annoy you that many "flyover" conservatives look negatively upon the "rich?"
While I am in a way flattered that you’ve chosen to read things I haven’t bothered to read in years, it’s pretty obvious that you have a lot of time on your hands. Must be building a dossier on me. Course THAT would be considered stalking. Just curious -- did you happen to find what it was I was saying I was making in my last posting from some years ago on that subject, and when was that exactly? I forget.
I think you mis-characterize "flyover country." There’s a lot of people I know in “flyover country” who would take exception to that characterization, in fact. Who says people in "flyover country" aren't rich? I have some friends in mid-America that are multi-millionaires. Some farmers are multi-millionaires. Billionaire Warren Buffet lives in “flyover country.” You’ll have to get out and get around a bit more. Sounds like you harbor some class-warfare style resentments which are more characteristic of socialists and quite uncharacteristic of true-conservatives.
People have different levels of knowledge about different things. But not all knowledge has equal value. For instance, a person could memorize a 100-page spread sheet of random numbers. As impressive as that level of recall is, the value of the knowledge or evidence for one's reasoning skill is nil. The significance of the knowledge is nil. It amounts to retention of obscure, meaningless data.
Enough of the PhDs and pretenders to PhDs at DC when still here at FR tried to act as though they knew more than they actually did and often attempted to pull rank simply on the basis of their PhD or "Deep Space 9" viewing habits. Funny, I never recall you expressing any amount of dismay with that aspect in all the years of their “vitriol” here. I seem to recall you skulking around in the background there way back when, even as it appears you still do over on “their” site.
So I decided to pull the curtain away from the “Wizard”(s) so to speak. Flush them all into the open. Being the capitalist that true-conservatives at heart are, I effectively challenged them to place a measureable value on what they supposedly knew.
I challenged you on this thread. You haven’t. You’ve choked.
Of course, back then that’s when all hell broke loose. All that talk, bluff and bluster from the DC crowd didn’t count for much, as it turned out. When the rubber had to meet the road, all they could do was squeal.
“It ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.” I just flushed out a lot of pretenders who couldn’t and weren’t “doing it,” and they knew it, and a lot of readers here on FR found that out real quick. They’re finding out the same thing about you right now in fact.
Got science credentials? OK let’s have ‘em. You’ve been silent and it hasn’t gone un-noticed. If you had any creds of any merit or relevance and were making a bundle for what you know and do in life sciences, you’d be able to very freely expound on some scientific topic in a confident, convincingly scientific way. But you haven’t. You’ve sniped. You’ve choked. I’ll let that speak for itself. DC isn’t here anymore. You'll have to just choke on your own.
One can actually put a dollar value on what I know. Over the years what I know about science and what I do in science has made my clients hundreds of millions of dollars for some, and has saved hundreds of millions for others. It's just a fact. Like I say again, it ain't braggin' if you can do it. Can you say the same?
Critque my education, or career? I'll just say put up or shut up. I don't care how jealous someone is who tries to act like he knows it all, when what he knows has little or no value to begin with. I just cut out the all the baloney and all the pretend and brought the discussion right straight back to economics and capitalism. So far, you’ve just choked, and expressed the beggar-thy-neighbor line of the everyday common liberal.
I know what many PhDs make. With the exception of my early career in science I have consistently made more than most. I don’t apologize for productive and profitable capitalism. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. Do you resent the success and 7-8 figure annual wealth of Rush also? How about Ann Coulter? Sarah Palin's book will make her millions too. Sounds a lot like you just might be inclined to resent all of them, not just me. Envy kills there, man. Get a grip.
Doesn’t mean PhDs are not intelligent. Many are. Maybe they’re just not very smart. Many have admitted as much to me. So who's really "smarter" the guy who may have a lot of knowledge about what is insignificant, or the guy who has a lot of knowledge that delivers a measureable value to his client?
On an ID thread it’s a lot of fun to talk to people who believe they are intelligent, but aren’t intelligent enough to account for how mindless goo-to-you materialistic explanations can account for the emergence of human intelligence.
Rush has no BS degree in anything, but when it comes to “smart,” the education establishment certainly didn’t make him. Does he really need one? He knows all about football. I’d never attempt to debate him. He’d clean up. That said, he wouldn’t want to try to debate me on a matter of life science. Doubt he’d try if we knew each other already and he had the chance. His knowledge has market value in his context, and mine has value in my context. You have yet to establish any value for what you know about life sciences. It ain’t braggin’ if you can do it… but you’ve choked.
Now I suppose you can always come back and say that the knowledge a PhD has is of more value than the dollar value he's paid. Of course I'd come right back to you and say the market determines the value, so prove it. Don't give me esoteric fluff, “penumbrae and emanations” -- pie-in-the-sky metrics. Give readers a credible, believable metric everybody can agree on.
Unless you can give a better metric than the one the market sets for the value of what passes for talent on a site designed for discussions on the value of conservative thought, you'll just have to accept market value as the only credible determining metric of value for the educational knowledge and employment there is.
So yeah, I can see where you're coming from. yet you've gone so far as to brag about what super-rich county (in a deep blue state, btw) you live in (years ago). That's a bit much, IMO.
Actually and that is to say I am happy to say “live in, still.” Yes, I’m in a deep blue state. I must be behind enemy lines. You must have zip-code envy or something.
In spite of all that neighbors will readily attest that it is still very beautiful here.
But again that’s your problem not mine. And envy has no quarter with true-conservatism. I don't recall the exact context that surrounded the exchange but it was likely not with you. Again I am flattered that you’ve taken so much time to research all this, but it really wasn’t that memorable an exchange for me. Stating a matter of fact is just that, however. I’m blessed. I live in a nice part of the country. But why not just ask yourself. If I have all these credentials and all this employment experience what would a guy like me be doing living in a place like, say, a burned out section of downtown Detroit? That might look odd if not suspect, don't you think?
I just think you have something to prove for some unknown reason.
In the cyberworld we all establish our respective credibilities. It's not an unknown reason at all. Some sound like they know what they're talking about and they have a reason why they do. Some enquiring minds want to know. And I tell them. You wanted to know so I told you. Pretty simple.
Some are impressed with it, and that’s fine I suppose. Some just can't handle the truth, and seethe. I don't care one way or the other. The truth comes out who really knows what and what is the value of what they know. It’s that second one that makes a lot of lightweight PhDs uncomfortable, and they know it. Others pretend to know more than they do and they are busted. Those calling themselves PhDs often are.
I also think you tend to exaggerate your life story. Sure, many people do in the anonymous world of Internet forums, but for one who often speaks of integrity, it reflects poorly on you.
Sounds like more of an admission on your part than anything right there. Do you purposefully misrepresent what you are in internet forums? If so, that’s a shame, but that’s what I’m flushing out again. Just another phony poster.
You are welcome to think as you like, but what is clear to any reader is that your perspective has at best been shaped only by experience gained as some boss-man's pedestrian W-2 employee. My educational and career history reflect very favorably upon me. It’s your very apparent envy which clashes with conservatism and your equally apparent lack of any measureable accomplishments that reflects most poorly on you
One example is the different dates that you started your firm. I'll concede; really, it makes no difference to me if it is 5, 10, 15 or 25 years old.
Wise of you to concede that point. Study some corporate law focusing specifically on S-Corps and you'll understand how a career like mine can be achieved. In my case 25 years as an incorporated entity would not be correct; 21 years would be correct. But I've already discussed that sufficiently. You are welcome to believe in what you call “exaggeration” if that makes you feel better. Seems you have a penchant for that kind of thing.
But all it really reveals is that you have never been an owner, a partner, nor ever operated an S-Corp. Hence, your perspective simply lacks enough substance to comment. But that has been evident for some time now and becomes more so with each such interrogatory you make of me.
As a “9 to 5” W-2 employee, one’s career is essentially linear. Maybe you were tasked to do one thing -- a union hack riveting left hand doors on a Chevy assembly line, perhaps and maybe you did it for 5, 10, or 20 years. That’s fine. Productive work is honorable
Now if I really wanted to exaggerate, having doubled up on a lot of experience through effective time management, if one was to line up my differentiated, and in some cases overlapping career paths and experiences end to end in a linear fashion, I'd actually have a time in career substantially greater than 27+ years. It's never been just a 9-5 job.
Early in my career, I worked two jobs: 3rd shift in an analytical lab at one company, followed by 1st shift in a product development lab at another cosmetics company. Went home and slept in between. Wasn’t married at the time, so I could do something like that for a little more than a year. How would someone like you measure experience acquired in that fashion? I say one. Still some would say 2. Science is a hobby as much as it’s a rewarding occupation for me. And when you're having fun at the same time is it really work? Some would say no. But they'd be wrong too.
But another is in your list of degrees and universities, you said you went to VCU Medical School. For two undergrad BS degrees? That's odd. IOW, simply saying you went to VCU and earned two BS degrees wasn't "good enough" so you had to add "Medical School." Why?
Well since you asked let’s give you a small history lesson. The history of Virginia Commonwealth University begins in the 1940’s as the Richmond extension of the College of William and Mary (founded 1693). The College changed its name to Richmond Professional Institute in the early 1960’s. In 1968, the Board of RPI merged with the Board of the Medical College of Virginia (founded 1838) and the Commonwealth of Virginia chartered Virginia Commonwealth University.
Both of my undergrad degrees were earned under the pre-professional degree programs designed in conjunction with the requirements for entrance to the Medical College of Virginia, the allied health school of VCU. Not all the curricula for schools which are part of VCU (e.g., business) are designed for entrance to the Medical College. Still, the official VCU seal bears the date 1838.
My diplomas as awarded include the name of Medical College of Virginia. I could say VCU-MCV, but it is usually shorter to say just VCU since the distinction usually requires more explanation than its worth. You seem to need and want more of an explanation than most, but since you appear interested (or are at least trying desperately at making another failed attempt at “gotchya”) I am indulging you in some history. In more recent years VCU has dropped the name "Medical College of Virginia," and has instead chosen VCU Medical School as the preferred name for my program.
I graduated from New York Medical College (founded 1860) too. You obviously looked them up on the internet or library possibly to learn that the Archdiocese of NY holds a Board controlling interest in the institution. That is correct, Didn’t always. Does now. Doesn’t matter. Or does it to you for some reason? No clergy have any programs for training them at NYMC. Would it bother you to know that Yale was founded in 1701 primarily to train ministers?
I have never claimed falsely that I am an MD, although I have graduated from medical colleges. Darwin failed Edinburgh “Med,” and went to Cambridge to become of all things – a theologian, not a supposed “naturalist.” Most of what his body of literature consists of were letters to the editor on arcane topics like gardening. It is amusing to see the level of disdain so many Darwinists have for theologians. Few know what Darwin’s credentials actually were.
I chose to use the full name VCU Medical School in the recent post to you, a right to which I am entitled --- because I can. Again, it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.
I have a special needs son who is missing a small band of genes one one particular chromosome. His syndrome has a name. I can't for the life of me comprehend what kind of human would A) make that up, or B) accuse another of making that up.
Liberals play sympathy cards and “Christian bashing” cards from the bottom of the deck all the time. You say your child’s syndrome has "a name," due to missing genes on a band of chromosome. All syndromes have a name. Yeah? And?
You have said “missing” not translocated so it’s is likely not Robertson’s. So is it Down’s, Turner’s, Williams’ or one from an assortment of other syndromes which arise from missing genetic information, perhaps?
Most parents of children readily know what syndrome their child suffers from, because, as one would expect, they identify closely with the child and meet their needs constantly. You don’t seem to know what the syndrome is even now.
I have a special needs child in my extended family also. The word retarded is not offensive to either to her, her parents or anyone else. I’ll leave it to readers to decide what they think about the description you just gave -- some syndrome that has "a name." I find it unconvincing.
It almost goes without saying that mentally retarded people are typically "socially" retarded too. Not criticism there at all. It's a simple fact. You bought no cred with your fainting explanation of the choice of modifier you used.
You can't use a word like that that just 7-months before for purposes of insulting a fellow Freeper behind their back, and then cry foul on anyone else who uses it with you to your face and then pretend to be offended and "shocked" like it's a scene out of Casablanca or something.
Quite frankly, your disgusting refusal to accept something so important to me is the real reason, I think, I keep pressing you on other issues. Can you please get past this?
If you had identified what the syndrome was you would have more credibility with me, and likely with other readers. However, if any one is being dodgy about anything here, you strike me as far too coy at the moment. Face it: you used this whole thing as a prop in an argument with GGG. That impresses me more as an argumentative tactic a liberal might use – not a true-conservative. Frankly speaking, all your excuses have done nothing to improve upon perceptions of your cred here.
You've mentioned your son (or sons?) are a Marines. Of course I believe you - how would you feel if I challenged you on that fact? It would piss you off and be downright stupid of me to do so.
Yes, and in fact both are currently serving and one happens to be a Freeper who from time to time reads threads postings as he chooses here, when he’s not running chambers. I don’t care what you think one way or another. He’s generally a man of fewer words than I. In fact, I’ll point him to this discussion, and if he wants to comment, he will. He doesn’t post much, but knowing him he’d likely think the same thing about your cred that I do at present.
I have my suspicions about a few other minor details but it wouldn't advance the discussion.
And I about you as well. But whatever anyone’s suspicions are about what your credibility or scientific credentials are, they are stripped away now from being able to hide behind anyone or anything at this point, -- “special needs child” or DC
I also happen to think at this point we’ve pretty well established who knows what they are talking about and who doesn’t, and whose commentary particularly on topics related to science has credibility – and whose doesn’t. That, and also who’s the capitalist conservative and who’s just another class envy liberal pretender.
I challenged you to prove differently and you haven’t. I suspect it’s because you can’t.
