Ask a lecturer II.

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

No, I do not understand it. That's because: 1) I am a lecturer; 2) it would be extremely difficult for anyone who is not exactly what I say I am to be able to post what I have posted in this thread. Not impossible, I grant you. But next to impossible.

Really you've said nothing special in this regard. You just think you have.

First, he didn't pull me up on this. He didn't call it into question at all and certainly not in any constructive way. Second, it wasn't an accusation and it wasn't directed at the entire medical faculty. It was directed at the current administration. And if you think it has no basis in fact, then I'll have to try to show you that it does. In any case, I can tell you that my colleagues in Arts and in Commerce and in Human Sciences are almost unanimous, as far as I can tell, in believing exactly what I've just said: that these people are arrogant in the extreme.

So basically you've just justified my entire point here. I said that there is resentment from Arts and lo and behold you point towards it in your comment here.

I didn't assume it, I came that conclusion. There's a difference. I also did so on the basis of syke's general inarticulateness and the poverty of his arguments.

I think only one of us has put forward any evidence and that would be me. You've given nothing in the form of an argument except condescending tripe.

But really your bringing to bear things that happened very late in the thread: really only in my last post to syke. Basically, if you're going to go around calling someone an idiot, you'd better at least know how to spell it (no, I don't mean that literally).

As others have pointed out you made several rather ignorant remarks about students and the medical faculty (and re-read your post you clearly said "the medical faculty") on top of personal insults direted at posters on this board. You were the first to do all of those things and you only met derision after these incidences.

I initially wanted to avoid them because they were rude and dismissive (and not questions at all). I was goaded into engaging with them. That was a mistake. But, again, let the record show that I was nothing but respectful until syke's post and that, by and large, I've been respectful to all other than those who disrespected me (syke, offlercrocgod, and a couple of others)

Respect has to be earned. You came on here claimed to be a lecturer and sputed off offensive diatribe at posters you lost any chance of that. Why should anyone here respect you given your serious attitude problems.

Is it not the case for syke? If so, my apologies.

Why should you apologise that English is not my first language? I'm happy it isn't. Do you believe that everyone should be native english speakers? Now you're just being racist

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But for all you know, I am one of your lecturers! I don't think I've behaved badly: I fought condescension with a smallish dose of the same but mostly with reasoned argument. That is more than I can say for syke.

There you go saying things you have no possible way of knowing and making huge assumptions about people. Amz would and could never have you as a lecturer. And as for a reasoned argument, if anyone here can point out a part of your argument that is reasoned, I'd be surprised.

gandalf

OK stepping in here in my Category moderator hat.

I really do not care who insulted who first but if I see one more complaint about this thread I will start banning people. I assume that uberwolf who is the moderator on this forum has not seen this thread yet.

Let me remind people about the charter on this forum.

Flaming
- Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted.

Where is says "edited/deleted" you can now add banned as well. If you are serious about putting your point across I am sure you should be capable of doing it without resorting to petty personal abuse.

Eoin Macollamh

ecksor wrote:

That is incorrect, you clearly stated that undergraduates were not your intellectual equals.

That is false. And if you know it to be false (and you should) then it is also a lie. I never said any such thing. What I did say was this:

Also, no offence, but the average student isn't smart enough to interest me.

Notice those key words: 'to interest me [romantically in the context]'. What exactly do you know about my preferences in partners? Nothing. For all you know, I'm only interested in partners who are super-geniuses, much smarter than me.

Notice that I said 'the average student' as well. I didn't say all students. I didn't say 'undergraduates'. I said 'the average student'. There's nothing controversial about this. And, in case you don't know, most lecturers were not average students. The competition for jobs is too tough for average students. So when I say that the average student isn't smart enough to interest me, I'm saying no more nor less insulting than I would if I said 'the average student isn't tall enough to interest me (I'm 6' 6")'. Does saying that mean that I think that students are all short?

Does what I said mean that no student could interest me romantically? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that I think that no students are my intellectual equals? No again. I'm sure there are students who have superior intellects to mine. But the idea that you're all insulted because I don't want to sleep with you because, having taught hundreds and hundreds of students over many years and corrected their essays, I've concluded that most of them are not smart enough to interest me romantically, is really quite ridiculous. There's nothing pretentious or insulting about that. It is just the way it is. Or is no one allowed to state the obvious? Is Roy Keane allowed to say that he doesn't want to play football with Shelbourne because they're not good enough? Is that some sort of insult to Shelbourne? Is it sheer arrogance on Roy Keane's part if he claims to be better at football than the average punter?

Before you all go ape****, I'm not saying I'm Roy Keane. But I am saying there's a difference, maybe not in general intelligence (or maybe so) but in general education between me and my students. As such, I apologise for using the word 'smart' rather than 'educated': it was a kind of everyday shorthand that I dashed off unthinkingly. It might still be true, mind. And by any objective measure probably is. I said at the very beginning that I would be honest, brutally so if need be.

Even your standards of "it's not an insult if it's not aimed at someone posting on the thread" doesn't wriggle you out of that one.

I don't have to 'wriggle'. But you seem quite clearly to be taking everything I say in the worst possible way. And you're not alone. There has been a distinct and clear lack of charity in my interlocutors from the moment I came on here and long before I was the slightest bit rude to anyone. This is the basis for my conclusion that there is resentment of lecturers. I still have yet to be dissuaded.

Well, as he says there are other lecturers on these forums (just none that make such a big deal out of it). However, you should also bear in mind that while I'm willing to believe that you are a lecturer, you haven't actually proved it to anyone.

Again, your standards for proof are far too high. Again the question is: does it really seem like I'm faking it?

Amz

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

No, I do not understand it. That's because: 1) I am a lecturer; 2) it would be extremely difficult for anyone who is not exactly what I say I am to be able to post what I have posted in this thread. Not impossible, I grant you. But next to impossible.

I'm sure anyone who works in administration in UCD could quite easily access the same information as you and would also be able to comment on the SU and Student press etc. as you have done.

True, but there's such a thing as taking skepticism too far.

I have seen no evidence of that in this thread.

OK, well, what do you think? Do you think I am or not? Do I seem like I'm faking it?

I’m sceptical …

I offered to prove it--provided I could retain anonymity--to the mod who first locked the thread. I offered to send him a scan, with all identifying information blanked out, of a copy of my pay bulletin from any month in the last five years (his choice). He didn't choose to take me up on it.

Yes, but that’s not the same as proving it to those people who you addressed the thread to. We’d just have to take uberwolf’s word for it, just like you’re expecting people to take your word for it. People are entitled to be sceptical and will most likely remain so until it is proved beyond doubt that you are what you claim to be.

And if you think it has no basis in fact, then I'll have to try to show you that it does. In any case, I can tell you that my colleagues in Arts and in Commerce and in Human Sciences are almost unanimous, as far as I can tell, in believing exactly what I've just said: that these people are arrogant in the extreme.

So every member of the Medical Faculty currently involved in the administration of UCD is arrogant?

I’ll just have to take your word for it I suppose as none of your colleagues from Arts and the other faculties mentioned has become involved in this thread.

I didn't assume it, I came that conclusion. There's a difference. I also did so on the basis of syke's general inarticulateness and the poverty of his arguments.

So being articulate equates to intelligence?

You’d want to be careful about adopting that kind of attitude, “live by the sword, die by the sword”. The next quote might interest you.

But really your bringing to bear things that happened very late in the thread: really only in my last post to syke.

I don’t see your point.

I initially wanted to avoid them because they were rude and dismissive (and not questions at all). I was goaded into engaging with them. That was a mistake. But, again, let the record show that I was nothing but respectful until syke's post and that, by and large, I've been respectful to all other than those who disrespected me (syke, offlercrocgod, and a couple of others)

Two wrongs don’t make a right, someone of your intelligence surely knows that. That’s no excuse for how you’ve treated people on this thread. “They were mean to me so I was mean back” it’s a very childish attitude to have.

Is it not the case for syke? If so, my apologies.

I never said it was the case for syke, but was trying to make the point that basing opinions on someone’s level of intelligence on their use of the English language, without knowing anything about them is a little presumptuous. I’m guessing because your attitude to Syke was such that it would be the same for anyone who attempted to enter a discussion with you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But for all you know, I am one of your lecturers! I don't think I've behaved badly: I fought condescension with a smallish dose of the same but mostly with reasoned argument. .

I’m quite confident in the knowledge that you’re not one of my lecturers, I’d expect more of them anyway.

As I said above, because someone was condescending towards you doesn’t mean that you should automatically behave in the same way towards him or her. Why not take the higher ground and avoid all pettiness?

simu

Q - Where do you get ideas for publications/lectures - are they mostly responses to publications/lectures by others, your personal thoughts about the material you work with or a mixture of both?

ecksor

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

That is false. And if you know it to be false (and you should) then it is also a lie. I never said any such thing. What I did say was this:

Well, it is possible for me to be mistaken and not be lying, but I'll overlook that potentially insulting attitude.

However, if I am mistaken, then why did you feel the need to qualify the statement with "no offence" if you didn't think it might cause offence? I mean, if somone posted "no offence, but you have a face like a bag of sticks" then I wouldn't actually be surprised if the person I was talking to got offended. Lastly, if you say that you genuinely didn't mean to cause offence, then I'll take you at your word, but it's obvious that the statement was taken in a bad way by many people on here.

Notice those key words: 'to interest me [romantically in the context]'. What exactly do you know about my preferences in partners? Nothing. For all you know, I'm only interested in partners who are super-geniuses, much smarter than me.

Notice that I said 'the average student' as well. I didn't say all students. I didn't say 'undergraduates'. I said 'the average student'. There's nothing controversial about this. And, in case you don't know, most lecturers were not average students. The competition for jobs is too tough for average students. So when I say that the average student isn't smart enough to interest me, I'm saying no more nor less insulting than I would if I said 'the average student isn't tall enough to interest me (I'm 6' 6")'. Does saying that mean that I think that students are all short?

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with your standards for sophomoric nitpicking to tell if this is an example of that or if it's a valid point.

Again, your standards for proof are far too high. Again the question is: does it really seem like I'm faking it?

I stated that I'm prepared to believe you. My point is that you do not appear to be prepared to believe that anyone on this thread is anything other than a UCD undergraduate, even though you have offered no proof that you are a lecturer and your style of posting leads many to think that you are not.

Eoin Macollamh

syke wrote:

As others have pointed out you made several rather ignorant remarks about students and the medical faculty (and re-read your post you clearly said "the medical faculty") on top of personal insults direted at posters on this board. You were the first to do all of those things and you only met derision after these incidences.

First of all, I've re-read my post. What I said was:

However, the people from the medical faculty who are currently running the university have an obvious arrogance.

Notice the qualifying phrase: 'who are currently running the university'. That is not an ignorant remark nor is it a remark about the entire medical faculty. It is exactly what it seems to be: a remark about the people from the medical faculty who are running the university. If you don't think that Hugh Brady or some of his VPs are arrogant, it can only be because you've never met them.

Why should you apologise that English is not my first language? I'm happy it isn't. Do you believe that everyone should be native english speakers? Now you're just being racist

Now you're grasping at straws. I wasn't apologising for the fact that English is not your first language. How could I possibly have any call to apologise for that? I'm not responsible for it. I was apologising for assuming that it was your native language when, apparently, it is not. For a non-native speaker, your English is very good.

The charge of racism is a highly inflammatory one and one you'd be well advised to retract. If you do not, I will have to inform a mod about it.

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Notice the qualifying phrase: 'who are currently running the university'. That is not an ignorant remark nor is it a remark about the entire medical faculty. It is exactly what it seems to be: a remark about the people from the medical faculty who are running the university. If you don't think that Hugh Brady or some of his VPs are arrogant, it can only be because you've never met them.

I have and I don't find them any more arrogant that most and certainly not as arrogant as your posting style is. At least Brady for the most part attempts to be diplomatic and charasmatic..

Now you're grasping at straws. I wasn't apologising for the fact that English is not your first language. How could I possibly have any call to apologise for that? I'm not responsible for it. I was apologising for assuming that it was your native language when, apparently, it is not. For a non-native speaker, your English is very good.

So someone is "responsible" for my not having been born in an english speaking country? Are you implying that there is a charge to be held accountable for it?

But thank you, I've worked very hard to make it so.

The charge of racism is a highly inflammatory one and one you'd be well advised to retract. If you do not, I will have to inform a mod about it.

Learn what a winking smilie means

Chinafoot

seriously lads this whole ripping apart of posts is just getting boring. personally i couldn't give a toss of he's a lecturer or not, i just don't appreciate being thrown in with his generalisations of students.

as for your comments on UCD being a "party place"...firstly i would have to disagree and perhaps if you actually walked around the campus this year you would see that there appears to be a distinct lack of partying going on.
also, do you believe that college should just be about learning? should we not have some balance in our lives? our college days are supposed to be the best days of our lives so why shouldn't we enjoy ourselves as well as get the work done?
has it been so long since you attended college that you have forgotten how difficult and often tedious the work can be? and before you jump on that statement let me clarify......there are always going to be parts of our courses that we don't enjoy and therefore the work can be often tough going. why shouldn't we go out and socialise with our fellow students. afterall this is the time "to shed insular and provincial habits" :rolleyes:

to be perfectly honest i am quite confused as to why you deigned to grace us with your presence on this board. you're comments haven't exactly been helpful and you have come across as incredibly patronising. seems like you just came on here to give yourself a little ego-stroke. :rolleyes:

OfflerCrocGod

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

I initially wanted to avoid them because they were rude and dismissive (and not questions at all). I was goaded into engaging with them. That was a mistake. But, again, let the record show that I was nothing but respectful until syke's post

You posted 6 minutes after syke and you immediately reprimanded him and dismissed him, what goading?

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

I've been respectful to all other than those who disrespected me (syke, offlercrocgod, and a couple of others)

What disrespect? I posted after you stoped debating with syke and started calling him an "infant" because you couldn't come up with an adequate riposte to his posts. I then tried to point out your myopia when it comes to your own posts by contrasting your post about you being superior to your students and then you complaining about the superiority complex of the Med Faculty. Hence the picture of the pot and the kettle, pot calling the kettle black.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Is it not the case for syke? If so, my apologies.

Not for some of us, including me. To adapt a Samuel Johnson quote "Caviling is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Anyway this whole thread is going nowhere, quickly and in flames.

Eoin Macollamh

OK, I'm going to have to take two steps to try to calm things down here.

1) I'm going to post a scan of my January 2005 pay bulletin. It will have all identifying information blocked out but you will see that my gross pay for the month is €6,226.25, which works out to an annual salary of €74,715, which is the top of the College Lecturer scale for those hired after 1995 (and you can confirm this at the link I gave early on in the thread). This ought to satisfy you all that I am what I say I am. There may be a couple of other positions in the university that pay exactly the same wage (I haven't checked) but I doubt it.

2) I am only going to respond to substantive questions and remarks. I'm not going to play the pissing contest game any more or engage in any more arguing about who was disrespecting whom. Any posts about whether I'm arrogant or not or whether I behaved appropriately or not or whether I'm really a lecturer or not or whether I think the entire medical faculty is arrogant (I never said any such thing) or whether I think students are really very thick (I never said that either) or whether my typos ('your' instead of 'you're') are evidence that I'm a moron or rather of the fact that I've been typing a lot of responses very quickly: all of them will be ignored.

And if we can't carry on a discussion from here on out with a modicum of decorum, I'll have to chalk it up to experience and regretfully take my leave.

I do expect syke's charge of racism to be retracted, however.

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

OK, I'm going to have to take two steps to try to calm things down here.

1) I'm going to post a scan of my January 2005 pay bulletin. It will have all identifying information blocked out but you will see that my gross pay for the month is €6,226.25, which works out to an annual salary of €74,715, which is the top of the College Lecturer scale for those hired after 1995 (and you can confirm this at the link I gave early on in the thread). This ought to satisfy you all that I am what I say I am. There may be a couple of other positions in the university that pay exactly the same wage (I haven't checked) but I doubt it.

2) I am only going to respond to substantive questions and remarks. I'm not going to play the pissing contest game any more or engage in any more arguing about who was disrespecting whom. Any posts about whether I'm arrogant or not or whether I behaved appropriately or not or whether I'm really a lecturer or not or whether I think the entire medical faculty is arrogant (I never said any such thing) or whether I think students are really very thick (I never said that either) or whether my typos ('your' instead of 'you're') are evidence that I'm a moron or rather of the fact that I've been typing a lot of responses very quickly: all of them will be ignored.

And if we can't carry on a discussion from here on out with a modicum of decorum, I'll have to chalk it up to experience and regretfully take my leave.

I do expect syke's charge of racism to be retracted, however.

So basically what you're saying is you can't and won't answer the charges levied against you?

For the most part noone is questioning your credentials, more your attitude and suitability for those credentials.

ecksor

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

1) I'm going to post a scan of my January 2005 pay bulletin. It will have all identifying information blocked out but you will see that my gross pay for the month is €6,226.25, which works out to an annual salary of €74,715, which is the top of the College Lecturer scale for those hired after 1995 (and you can confirm this at the link I gave early on in the thread). This ought to satisfy you all that I am what I say I am. There may be a couple of other positions in the university that pay exactly the same wage (I haven't checked) but I doubt it.

As I said, I'm happy to believe you, I just detected a slight double standard in your reluctance to believe some others when you gave no more reason to believe you. Secondly, the original reason for me reading this thread is because the question of your identity was raised. I don't see how a payslip with all details blanked proves anything since it could easily be anybody's. If you really want to prove who you say you are I'm sure we can come up with some reasonable and mutually agreeable way for me to determine that you are legitimate and I will guarantee that your anonymity will remain. (believe me, if I cared I could remove your anonymity anyway, so don't get too paranoid about this).

I do expect syke's charge of racism to be retracted, however.

Nobody here takes that charge as anything more than a humourous play on words so I think this will be interpreted as continuing the pissing match after you claimed you were ending it.

gandalf

TBH at this stage people this thread has gone so far off the original reason it was started that I am locking it down. Eoin if you wish to restart a new thread then consult with uberwolf tomorrow and with his agreement start another. You can send him details of your payslip if you deem it necessary so he can verify your claim.

Obviously if uberwolf disagrees with closing this thread he can open it again. Personally I think everyone needs to calm down and behave like and converse like adults.