Originally Posted by Akria

....it was merely an excuse to have a go at him, as it were.

Originally Posted by Clippo

Lets just look at the facts in this thread. I simply responded to the personal jibe by mpkdavies, who, I’m fairly certain knows from past exchanges, that I have a BSc (Hons) & higher degree in a practical science subject.

I asked him if he knew how the person in the link was ‘qualified’ to make the allegations that he did.

And by the way of a snipe back at mpkdavies I asked him what his ‘qualifications’ were to pretend to be such an authority on GW. (I suspect he has a computing qualification but at what level I do not know).

So, essentially this was a personal exchange into which rjt essentially interjected – in post 10 he exposed his own inferiority complex about his own qualification – and which harks back to :-
A totally Personal Post
This post is the announcement to the forum that rjt had been awarded a BA(Hons) from the OU.

To set the record unequivocally straight, I here reproduce the relevant posts in that thread :

Post #10


Post # 32 rjt


Post #33 Clippo


Post#34 rjt


Post #58 rjt



The postings in# between 34 and 58 and some after illustrate the classic Britannist and rjt problem – their paranoid suspicions about posters who don’t mention the evil EU in every post.

Now, to make it crystal clear, I will say again to rjt:-

Congratulations on getting your BA(Hons). Reading between the lines I suspect that this has resulted from a very special and dedicated effort on your part and you thoroughly deserve it.

In no way do I denigrate your degree. From the evidence above, I suggest it is you who has assumed (incorrectly) that I have. I also know that we have had other exchanges on similar lines but I honestly don't think I have denigrated your degree. If you can show me where I have, I will honestly apologise. I will try to explain, in a different way, why you may be mistaken in thinking that I do :-

I have said many times that when anyone offers an opinion on a subject, I try to assess their ‘qualification’ (& not necessarily academic if the subject isn’t academic), for making those statements.

As a scientist, (yes I am and I have several peer-reviewed publications to my name but I’m not going to tell you Davies), it is perfectly natural for me to pay more attention to opinions of people with recognised scientific qualifications or long practical experience, than to believe without question somebody who hasn’t a recognised qualification or experience in that or closely related subjects.
( I do accept that there are a few gifted individuals who may not have true qualifications or even experience but who can pick up the salient features of any debate).

However, if you don’t understand clearly my implication in the last paragraph, a simple example :-
I personally would not consider it to be very credible if a Roman Catholic priest offered me marriage guidance counselling.

So now to the GW debate. A dozen or more sciences have / are contributed(ing) to the GW phenomenon. To persuade me that a person is making a credible point, it helps enormously if they have an accepted qualification / practical experience in any of those sciences or even have previously demonstrated a reliable interest in those subjects.

I have to say bluntly, rjt, that your BA(Hons) is a weakness in this debate – however, if you were to debate, say, ‘cities in ancient times ….., I would take particular cognisance of your views.

I note that mpkdavies has declined to answer my question and I can only imagine what Britannist’s qualifications might be (if he has any).

Finally, for now, you, rjt, and Hartlepool, have freely admitted that you are Creationists. By that I am assuming you believe that God created the Earth and it’s life approx 6,000 years ago. If that is so, can you not see how that belief disqualifies you from making any comment that can believed by most scientists and most other religions, on almost any scientific subject ?

Originally Posted by Akria

...that he did not do so slightly more nicely, and without minor jibes is regrettable.

Originally Posted by Britannist

I never wrote that it was..(from post#340

Originally Posted by Clippo

As usual, in no particular order, Britannist, rjt, mpkdavies, Hartlepool & others don’t read exactly what has been written and consequently attempt to twist the writing to their prejudices. In doing so, they conveniently think they can get away without answering questions put to them. Well boys, the game up – I know your little game :-

1. To any rational person, mpkdavies’ first post was indeed an insult to me – yet another in the very long line from him on this forum. He also has insulted many others.
I chose, again a long time ago, to counter these insults with my own – because some brainless pratts like this think they have ‘chalked up a debate victory’ if one doesn’t respond.

2. Please highlight specifically where I have denigrated rjt’s degree in the posts from the personal announcement thread. Furthermore, please focus on my exact first sentence in my post, # 33 . And further please focus on my statement (in bold to emphasize) in post #31 of this thread Perhaps you didn’t read those because it doesn’t fit your prejudices.

3. I will not give any details about my qualifications on the grounds of forum privacy – an identical statement to that given by rjt himself in post#58 of ‘A Totally Personal Post’
Mpkdavies has known, for possibly several years, that I claim (correctly) to have a higher degree in a science subject and has never questioned it before. indeed he knows my real name as for example moderator C_Steam and others on the forum can confirm if they wish to.
By casting doubt on my right to bear the title, Doctor, you (named above), really show that you do not understand the structure of higher education in most countries of the world. And just because my research was published in peer-reviewed journals, doesn’t imply that my career continued in such a way that the research I did was suitable for peer-review publication.

Rjt wrote:-


I would agree that in this scientific debate, your BA has no relevance whereas a BSc would. ‘Life experience’ is the last, weak intellectual refuge of those who cannot understand the detail of any debate.
Consider also that I, and some others, may have even greater ‘life experience’ than yourself.
&

I am completely aware that there are various ‘versions’ of Creationists. Tell me what version you are, or if you don’t understand the question, what is your understanding of paleogeology ?
I would prefer that you didn’t use the phrase (from A Totally Personal Post) post #34,


Finally, rjt, the following is meant to honest & sincere advice, (although you and others may seek to pervert it), from someone who really has ‘life experience’ –

Please work hard at improving your spelling (& punctuation in many cases). I have quite some experience in interviewing people for jobs from different educational standards. There is such competition for worthwhile jobs these days that pre-selection on the basis of letters of application invariably takes place. I feel that some of yours may go straight to the ‘don’t interview’ pile.

Originally Posted by Clippo

Please highlight specifically where I have denigrated rjt’s degree.

Originally Posted by Clippo

prejudices....game...

Originally Posted by Clippo

Clippo wrote to another poster: Please work hard at improving your spelling (& punctuation in many cases).