board77

yovargas asks me

Quote:

Why do you keep bringing up that silly PHd thing? It was mentioned once, in passing, while making an entirely different point then the one you keep bringing up, and yet you keep talking about bringing it up like it's the only thing that matters here. Would it actually matter one way or the other if some surveys amongst PHd holders was presented? It wouldn't prove anything one way or the other, would it? So why do you keep bringing it up??

Because the very premise of this thread as indicated in the very first post is that so called "expert opinion" is nothing of the kind since Great Presidents are rated by these people simply because they have Ph. D. degrees.

And that is a falsehood.

There are no such surveys or studies or any other word you want to pin on it.

Of course, with multiple edits later, that post has been changed and changed and changed. But what has not changed is the falsehood that this entire thread is based upon.

Way back in torc, CG was insistent upon the principle that if your argument is founded upon a false premise, everything which flows from it is false. Sounds good to me.

So that is why I keep bringing it up yovargas.

Please read the very first post. You are so hung up about it that I edited it to remove the hangup.

It now asks about the credentials of the person who provided the criteria.

Because that's the question, isn't it? The criteria is what judged for greatness. The historians merely did a professional job with a criteria that deemded certain atributes as great.

I want to know the credentials of the criteria provider, and am not going to pay you $150/hour to support your own position.

Your continued habit of coming up with lame threads and then editing either the improper title or the first post is now getting rather old. So you edited your language to attempt to meet my objections. That means nothing. Your intentions were announced loud and clear in that original first post. Now you are like a suspected felon constantly changing his story before detectives while undergoing questioning.

Get it right the first time and save lots of future problems.

I think we need to start asking what a 'Great' President actually is.

I don't know why some people opt to complain about errors in original thread titles and first posts rather than work through those errors and try to have a civilized discussion.

It is very annoying when someone in a discussion constantly avoids the issue by looking for technicalities and complaining about them rather than participating in the building of the discussion.

Should CG start a ANOTHER thread (oh god...)? This time with "correct" title and "correct" first post (and an oath or the like not to edit either)? That is not what this is about. Does it matter what the original title and post said? No. They have since been changed or added-to to fit the current discussion. People do it all the time on forums when the discussion changes direction, which is bound to happen when they start getting 4, 5, 15+ pages long. A local example would be the two kingdoms of Iavas Saar: http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77 http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

Stop dodging and throw some punches people! I'm getting bored!

When people get bored they have the freedom to find something more exciting.

I agree with Lord Morningstars latest post. A far more productive discussion and one that could actually contain some real content to sink our teeth into would be one centered around what makes a Great President. LM and I attempted to do this before but it garnered some attention than went the way of the wind.

I would be happy to be involved in a discussion of that type.

Quote:

Because the very premise of this thread as indicated in the very first post is that so called "expert opinion" is nothing of the kind since Great Presidents are rated by these people simply because they have Ph. D. degrees.

Really? CG said that? I must have missed it. Please find me the quote where CG says "expert opinion" is "nothing of the kind" since these are just people with PHds.

This is a direct quote from the very post in this thread started by CG

Quote:

Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.

[/size]
After repeatedly pointing out to CG and others that there are NO such studies or surveys where the criteria for placement upon the panel was possession of a Ph. D. to rate presidents, CG has attempted to cover his behind with four, thats FOUR, individual edits, changing his words and attempting to change the thread itself.

Omar Khayam said "the moving hand once writ, moves on". For CG it would appear to be "the moving hand once writ, attmpts to change it over and over again to cover his many errors"

sauronsfinger wrote:

This is a direct quote from the very post in this thread started by CG

Quote:

Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.

[/size]
After repeatedly pointing out to CG and others that there are NO such studies or surveys where the criteria for placement upon the panel was possession of a Ph. D. to rate presidents...

And, naturally, what you repeatedly pointed out has little to nothing to do with the actual question (nor does it state, as you claimed, that CG thought expert opinion was "nothing of the sort"). CG asked whether a PhD makes you an expert on greatness. You ignore the question and the point, and answer by saying that surveys on rating presidents aren't just based on PhDs. Of course, CG never said anything about history surveys being based on PhDs. He simply asked if education can make people experts on the subject of greatness.

The point (which you missed or ignored) is that history experts are experts on history, not greatness. And there is no such thing as a greatness expert. That I know of, at least.

no
No
NO
NO
the thread title clearly uses the words GREAT PRESIDENTS to begin its title. The thread is not merely about expert opinion -- but expert opinion in the rating of presidents. In the first post CG then states his opinion that a Ph. D. degree does not grant you expert status in conferring greatness. Yovargas - the two are part of the same idea that is the very foundation for the thread. Any honest person can see that.

Why do you attempt to cover that up? Stupid question --- the why is obvious.

Here is a question for you? If the statement by CG was not so damning and the foundation for a falsehood, why has he taken such effort to remove it from the thread? Notice that his statement

Quote:

Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.

does not merely ask if a Ph. D. grant you expert status in determining greatness... HE SAYS IT IS THE VERY CENTRAL CORE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD.

But with repeated editing, the very core central question of this thread has been carefully removed in the hope that its damning implications are also removed.

The very title of this thread -- the very first words in the title - state that it is about Great Presidents ----- the very first post says that the central question of the thread is "Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness?" Greatness in what yovargas? Greatness in what?
The answer is obvious since its right there in the title of the thread and one would have to be blind not to see it. Or suffering from some other more self-limiting handicap of their own making.

A two letter answer could have answered "the question of this thread".

NO.

A Ph.D. does not grant you expert status in determining greatness in the rating of presidents.

And that is one key reason why there are no such studies or surveys where people were placed upon such panels because they had a Ph. D.

They do not exist.

CG knew this from the start. The thread was founded upon a falsehood. False premise from CG -- thus, false everything else that flowed from him in this thread supporting the false premise.

And one more thing yovargas.

There is nothing wrong in the editing of a post. We all have done it.
We spot a typo and go back and edit it. We get somebodys name wrong so we go back and edit it. We say something in anger or a fit of temper, think better of it and go back and edit it. Thats all well and good.

But when you begin a thread and then make a statement within the very first post stating the CENTRAL QUESTION OF THE THREAD ... the very heart of the thread idea ... it is totally wrong to go back and change that through editing.

Remove the heart and the entity dies. Of course, in this case, the heart was badly flawed from its very first breath.

Quote:

If the statement by CG was not so damning and the foundation for a falsehood, why has he taken such effort to remove it from the thread? Notice that his statement

Because you insist on avoiding the point of the question and instead focus on the PHd statement (I would generally say that PhD holders in whatever given subject can safely be considered experts on that given subject, btw, though I assume that alone isn't enough to be considered in these survey deals; but that has nothing to do with the point). As I pointed out before, and you kindly ignored, the PhD part in any of these statements is irrelevent and can be replaced with anything and still make the exact same point. Let me demonstrate:

Does <anything> grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.

The point remains exactly the same.

The point (which you missed or ignored) is that history experts are experts on history, not greatness. And there is no such thing as a greatness expert.

It is what it is ... or should I say it is what it was before it was changed four times?

This is this... this is not something else .... or should I say that this is what it used to be before it was changed four times and became something else?

We are not talking about a sidepoint....
we are not talking about a minor deviation from topic
we are not talking about a lowly detail
we are not talking about a petty semantic difference

to remind you what we ARE talking about I quote from the now Lost Words and Changed Wisdom of Cenedril Gildinaur ....

Quote:

Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.

Please read lthe second part of that statement which clarifies the importance of the first part. CG states right up front for the whole Board to see that he considers this THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. yovargas keeps asking me why I keep coming back to this ---- duh? Because the person who made the thread stated that this was the key question to it.

But in discussing the key question, the central question, the very heart of the thread, the very reason for its being .... I am accused of dwelling on a petty or minor point which has no relevance to the discussion.

This is rather humorous and reminds me a great deal of the old Soviet Union trick with the pictures of the powerful government leaders on May Day every year. Your proximity to the leader was judged to be your standing in the Party. If you fell out of favor with the leader, the previous years photographs would be altered and edited so as to remove the people who had fallen from the grace of the Communist Party. See, you can change history.

And this thread proves it. I am just thankful that I copied parts of it and can reproduce them here to show that the did exist. "Yes Virginia, CG really did write what SF claims he did".

Pardon me for being such a jerk as to have the temerity to actually point to the very words of CG to show the key question he had in mind from the start.

Forgive me for dwelling on such a minor point as the very central question the thread writer started with in his very first post.

Absolve me from the shame and pain of page aftger page of criticism for boldly pointing out the obvious -- that this thread was founded upon a false premise.

Mea cupla
mea culpa
mea maxima culpa.

Ugh. Fine, we'll do this your way. So you say that the answer to the central question of this thread - Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? - is No. And guess what, I agree! I bet CG does too! So now that we're all in agreement, we can all move on. Is that okay with you? Now that this vital matter is settled and we're all in agreement, are we allowed to discuss a following point? I hope so. If you will allow us to move on to a following point, I hope you can address this question:

If a PhD does NOT grant you expert status in determining greatness, then what DOES grant you expert status in determining greatness?

WHAT SHOULD I USE AS THE CORRECT THREAD TITLE TO ASK WHAT WE BOTH KNOW THIS THREAD IS ABOUT?

If you answer that, I'll have this thread locked and a new thread started.

Otherwise, use this thread, get over your very stupid hangup over what started this thread, and answer the real question of the thread.

I accepted that it wasn't the PhDs who created the criteria by which they declared FDR to be "great". Then I asked about the criteria provider.

BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WHO IS AN EXPERT ON GREATNESS

You can complain that I started with the wrong thead title ... or you can answer the question.

Someone created a criteria by which presidents were rated.

You said "carefully crafted criteria". That means someone crafted the criteria.

The criteria is what determined greatness. The Historians merely matched presidents to criteria in a most professional matter.

The criteria is the key, and you said "carefully crafted". Someone crafted it.

It is the criteria that determined greatness. It is the criteria that deemed certain attributes to be "great".

The criteria itself isn't even in question. The only question is the qualification of the criteria provider.

What were the qualifications of the criteria provider?

That's the important question. That's also the ducked question.

The criteria provider is either an expert on greatness, or the whole damn study by the Disparate Ideologies Institute is subjective.

Either expert or subjective.

You don't answer "expert or subjective", you say "I don't like the way the thread was started."

Expert or Subjective. Not the PhDs, they're not the ones under discussion anymore. Someone else, not the PhDs, is either expert or subjective.

That person, the someone else, is the criteria provider. I'm sorry he wasn't mentioned in the first post of this thread, now get over it.

That person, what were his credentials?

Nothing according to what has been said. Any Joe Blow's opinion is ok and can be accepted as the gospel truth of the matter, regardless of Joe Blow's qualifications. So in fact what has been said repeatedly by persons here is that the 17 year old kid working at McDonalds because he dropped out of high school because of his gang activities call tell the world how to preform open heart surgery and by god we best believe he knows his stuff, because he has a spectacular wonderful opinion that everyone has a heart.

Quote:

WHAT SHOULD I USE AS THE CORRECT THREAD TITLE TO ASK WHAT WE BOTH KNOW THIS THREAD IS ABOUT?

If you answer that, I'll have this thread locked and a new thread started.

First you want me to do your research for you ... but refuse to pay me for my time.

Now you want me to write your title threads for you.

When did I become an employee of CG Industries Inc.?

The thread was based on a falsehood that you yourself crafted with your own words. It is based upon a false premise.

Do as you like with locking this thread or starting more. Its a free country and i support your rights as a member of this Board and as an American citizen.

Quote:

you say "I don't like the way the thread was started

What I may like or not like is not the question. The question is what you said it was from the very start in your thread on GREAT PRESIDENTS...

[quote]Does a PhD grant you expert status in determing greatness? That's the question of the thread.[/quote][/b]

A very simple and short answer to your key, central question about Great Presidents and a Ph.D. ----

no.

That is why there are no such studies in the first place.

Ok. A PhD does not grant expert status in determining greatness.

Therefore the report of the Disparate Ideology Institute is a subjective instead of objective report.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

Great, sf, you've answered the question and we all agree. Wonderful! Will you be ever so kind in allowing us to move the discussion forward or is this thread only allowed to consider that one, sole question?



Ara, whether you see it or not, there is a massive difference between objective and subjective statements. Science is pretty dependant on that difference. Therefore, no, Clem's subjective views have no relevance on the objective views on heart surgery. Doctors don't have subjective opinions about how to perform heart surgery, they have objective knowledge. Note - objective knowledge isn't always correct, but it isn't subjective.