From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Shitty Teachers!
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:06:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr6.170620.29105
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


In a previous message, garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey) says:

>        That's because you believe every single administrative
>or faculty member is out to get you. I've never seen a textbook-case
>of paranoia before I met you, Dave.

Heather, you seem to have a problem with twisting words around.  So
far, you've misquoted at least five individuals, and you've always left
out or distorted beyond recognition some key portion of their arguments.
(Remember the network software problems?  Even after I posted a message
*from the program's authors* that stated the problem, you insisted that
it was only in my imagination.  But I digress...)

I never said that everyone was out to get me; that *would* be paranoia.
But do I think it's possible for a professor to be so vicious?  Yes.
Do I think one professor in particular was out to get me?  Definitely.
The others who lack teaching ability simply don't care about students
and will sometimes go out of their way to screw them over.  Not even
half of the professors and administrators I've met belong in this category,
by the way.  (As the rest of you will see, Heather has a tendency to
exaggerate.)

>The rest of the student body
>recognized this and told you to sit down and shut up.

Not "the rest of the student body"; merely a (relatively) few people who
posted their comments.  Exaggeration again, hmm?

>>-- A physical chemistry professor who assumes that *everyone* in the
>>   class is cheating, even accusing them of buying the answer book
>>   that goes with the textbook (note that *he* ordered both books for
>>   the class!).
>
>        Assuming he's talking about the same prof I now have, the prof
>urges us to *check our work* with the answer book. But when the same typo
>or wrong constant, etc. from the book ends up in your homework, well...

If you're insinuating that I cheated, you had damn well better be able
to back it up.  But you'll never be able to.  Why?  I didn't buy the book.
I never used the book.  I didn't even know it existed until I was accused
of copying from it.  The fundamental problem is that it's easier to
prove that an action *was* carried out than to prove that it *wasn't*.

And if the case against me hadn't been so flimsy, the professor would
not have told me to "go to the TA" and then refused to give me the TA's
name.  He wouldn't have told his secretary to say to me "Dr. So-and-so
doesn't want you to have that information."  And the TA wouldn't have
agreed with me so quickly that the degree of similarity between my
solution and the solution in the answer book was certainly expected.
Thankfully, I know that there *are* good professors -- something
you refuse to agree that I know, because it hurts your argument --
and one of them helped me to find the TA and get the problem resolved.

>        Dave, frankly, no one, I repeat, NO ONE could be found to
>agree with your opinion of the Chem Dept and in fact, several people
>who have had the exact same professors wondered where in the hell you
>came up with your little paranoid delusions.

*Everyone* who posted (besides me) either wasn't in the same classes
or had something to lose by telling the truth.  You're still in the
class "taught" (I use the term loosely) by the professor who falsely
accused me of cheating, so you *definitely* have something to lose.
And although many people *do* agree with me, a significant percentage
of them have graduated, or don't have accounts on the network, or both.
And whether or not I tell them to post on my behalf doesn't change what
happened, so what's the point?

>We were not being watched
>by Big Brother and fearing punishment. In fact, many of us were no longer
>in the prof's class and therefore out of harm's way even if he had
>decided to get down on us for speaking our mind.  It's all part of your
>paranoia, Dave; because no one else sees your boogiemen, we must be too
>scared or else in league with the vile devils. Puh-lease.

See above.  (If you can read, that is.  From your recent postings I'm
not sure that's the case.)

>>And it certainly is *not*!  In particular, the postings from one student
>>led me to believe that either she deserved the award for Most
>>Prolific A**-Kisser of the Year or she was getting paid to say what
>>she did.
>
>        Hmmm. I wonder if Dave is talking about me or about Liz.

I meant you, Heather.  You're the one who protests nearly everything I
post, whether it's about professors, the network, the network services
department, the food service, or *anything* else.  You're also the most
prejudiced against the people who don't take the strict science/engineering
core, holding the false belief that the rest of us have it easy.  (Liz
shares the bias against the people in my core, and also stands to lose
if she tells the truth, but it doesn't appear that she shares your personal
bias against me -- at least not to the same extent.)

So how much *is* the school paying you?

>Both of us spoke out strongly against Dave's supposed persecution
>at CWRU, mostly because we had all had the same profs and had seen
>NO problems.

Another problem: unlike the case with the network software, I know
damn well I can't *prove* what happened, except in the few cases where
the professors in question have bragged about their actions.  I didn't
carry a video camera with me.  But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I get the impression that you're the type who would claim that the
Holocaust didn't happen.  It didn't happen to *everyone*, right?  And it
didn't happen to *you*, right?  So by your reasoning, it must not have
happened.

Tell me this, Heather: what possible reason could I have to say what
I do if it weren't true?  What could I possibly gain?  I don't like
having professors dislike me, and keeping quiet didn't improve my
relations with them.  So why shouldn't I warn others?

>Dave thinks everyone is out to get him, frankly, so please
>just ignore his paranoid ravings.

As soon as there are any paranoid ravings to speak of, go ahead and
ignore them.  "Paranoid" implies an unreasonable reaction; mine is
well within the bounds of reason.

>The ENGINEERS! Now THEY have some
>really scary professors.

Further proof of your bias against students in my core.  None of the
three core curricula at CWRU is any more difficult than the other
two; they're simply different.

>The Chem Dept. (the sole focus of Dave's
>wrath, mostly) does not have the hideous professors that Dave claims.

"The sole focus of Dave's wrath, mostly"?  Isn't that a contradiction in
terms?  Not only aren't you reading what others post, you're not even
reading what *you* post!  Maybe *that's* the answer.  You're not afraid of
retaliation and you're not getting paid -- you're blind!  (Or stupid, but
I'm trying to be charitable.)

 -- Dave



-- 
David R. Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu)          *  NOTICE: If you notice this
CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92)     *  notice, you will notice after
Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG   *  noticing this notice that this
University of Rochester Cancer Center      *  notice is not worth noticing.
Newsgroups: soc.college