Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:00:00 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 11:23:14, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>Then I guess no one is able to judge anything, really. > >Only if you contemplate the possible differences there might be between >disciplines. Not to mention certain faculty traditions. You, yourself, barely >managed to acknowledge that original science in mathematics isn't that easy. barely? common knowledge I think... >Using your limited experience, Ahh the suggestion of adjectives, please show me someone with _unlimited_ experience... Tautologies are unnecessary, please. >discipline wise, in physics doesn't constitute a >basis for insulting someone elses work. Nor making it the commen standard of a >Danish thesis. Where did I do that? Please do not put word in my mouth! >Independent work may not necessarily result in new information. One example >being selecting, discarding and weighting material within a certain area (aka. a >literary study). In a literary study, yes. Explaing what alpha-beta does isn't a literary study, it is simple background information for the reader - there is a distinction to be made, something you seem extremely careless about, whether you this deliberately or unintentionally is anyones guess. >>I'd say it is very much splitting hairs, but anything to find some support for >>your view of course. > >You were the one trying to narrow the definition of research previously. Now you >want to expand it. Fine with me. That just elevates the thesis in question. I expected you to pick up on my irony. >>Yes you can write you mother a 50 word letter and turn it in as your thesis, >>doesn't mean it will _pass_ as a thesis... > >Well, I'll leave the evaluation to those actually qualified. The question is >form. Then you should not have "diverted attention to avoid the main topic", which was evaluation, not form. >>I'm comparing with how we do things here, that is the only basis I have for >>comparison as I haven't read too many masters from other places. >>Judge for yourself if I'm in a position to compare, I'm in the middle of the >>race myself, so if not I then who better - you? > >Probably not, but I haven't made comments about the quality of the work. I've >read Danish masters in the fields of Mathematics, Physics, History and English >(aaaarrgh!). My beef with you is your dismissal of method, which is >unsubstantiated. Reiterating about physics isn't sufficient. Your views has been no more substantiated, other than a lose comment about "critical literary study", which has nothing to do with the paper in discussion, you have provided nill to dismantle my opinion which has a solid foundation in practical experience and citations plus links posted here numerous times. You have a beef with many I understand, hope you are not a vegitarian. >>Ahh, I love it when you get personal. > >Myopia means lack of discernment, while ignorance can mean unaware or >uninformed. That's not too far off given your limited basis, which you admitted >above. Well I certainly wouldn't call you a narcissistic ignorant, although that wouldn't be too far off either. So shall we dispense with the name calling? >>Only this the last section supports your grasp on a straw, and I can't find this >>from the link anywhere, but I assume that you would not make it up. > >The last section is a clarification, not a straw of any kind. It clarifies nothing, contributs nothing, it is completely irrelevant. >>Still, is pasting from the net doing a 'critical literary study"? > >No, it isn't. That's your opinion, which you are more than welcome to express. _thank you_! >Though a little more finessé would have been appreciated. Agreed. > However, someone's >ability to use a certain methodology doesn't detract from its legality. I think you just snapped.... -S. >Regards, >Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.