From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: NO MORE %$#@* E-MAIL ABOUT THE JOB SITUATION
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:18:03 GMT

In article <92203.135006U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>I am beginning to woder just how stupid people can be........
>
>     THE ACADEMIC JOB MARKET IS NOT THE WHOLE JOB MARKET. Where did Rick
>     get the idea that it was (the "hidden assumption" in his argument).

I never said it was.  Let me explain my own arguments, thank you.
If you had read my entire post (a courtesy you apparently expect
from others, but not yourself) you would have seen two paragraphs
mentioning both industry and consulting.  That hardly shows I don't
know that the academic job market is not the whole job market.

>     Let's see if I can make it simple enough for him to understand.
>
>         1. Academic jobs available in the pure sciences : none, or so
>                 few, that none is a close enough approximation. After
>                 all, we all say that it is impossible for a lump of iron
>                 to spontaneously transmute itself into gold, even though
>                 anyone who has studies quantum mechanics knows that it is
>                 merely very very unlikely (huge improbability). Or for that
>                 matter, it is possible that by pure chance, so many people
>                 will die in freak accidents that I will find myself the next
>                 in line to be the king of England - but the probability of
>                 that is so low, that it is, in colloquial usage, termed an
>                 impossibility.       Clear enough ?

Perfectly clear.  However, if there are 50 tenure-track academic positions
in a given year, and over 1000 new Ph.D.'s (using approximate
numbers given here for math Ph.D.'s) some non-significant percentage 
will likely obtain a job.  Since there are lots of other qualified
people coming back from industry, let's say only 5 new Ph.D.'s
get jobs.  That's one-half of one percent.  I'm no quantum physicist,
but I would guess the chances of a lump of iron spontaneously changing
into gold would be on the order of 1 in 10^1000.  Clearly there
is a difference in improbabilities.  I believe the chances of you
becoming king of England would be similar (1 in 10^1000 or even lower).
If you can't see a difference between stating that it is impossible 
for lump of iron to change into gold, and stating that it is impossible
to get an academic job, then you have a serious problem.  One would
be better termed "unlikely" as opposed to impossible.  And that's
all I've been asking.  I've simply asked yoy to refrain from using
impossible when unlikely would be a much better term.  You claim,
like the character in Alice in Wonderland, that the words you use
mean exactly what you say, no more and no less.  Now that I've shown
that it's not clear that you meant improbable when you said
impossible, you say your usage was "colloquial."  I think I've just
proven that you aren't as clear as you think you are.

>
>              2. There are next to no nonacademic jobs that can be had with
>                 a degree in the pure sciences alone. That is why you need
>                 to take those applied courses.

I agree with you perfectly on this.

>
>How can any one be as bloody stupid as this guy ?
>Answer : By trying to be. Rick had an axe to grind, and he didn't care how
>         much he had to twist logic, or quote out of context, to do it.

Why do I have an axe to grind?  Is that what you say when you can't
find another motive (re: Dr. Toreki's alleged hidden agenda to get 
more students to save his job)?  I had two midterms to study
for this morning; instead, I took about 30 minutes to respond to your
posting.  I did so because I was infuriated at your tactics.
You'll note that I haven't called you a jerk, an idiot, or stupid.
I've simply attacked your arguments, not you.  I have provided
evidence showing that you do what I say you do.  At least I quote
you when responding, a courtesty still adhered to by most people.
If you knew much about the net, you would know why this
is important.

>
>It isn't a diatribe to complain about commentary like this : It is unfair to
>         be unfair (Oh, by the way, that's known as a "tautology")

In my opinion, your postings are diatribes.  My handy online
webster defines diatribe as "a bitter and abusive speech or
writing."  You (in calling me stupid) have been abusive.  In
my opinion, your postings qualify as diatribes.  If you don't
agree, that's fine; you are entitled to your opinion.

>
>It is hardly unreasonable to demand, not ask, that you read the whole damn
>article before you post a commentary, and pay attention to what is actually
>being said in it while you're doing so.

It certainly is not unreasonable.  I merely ask you to extend
my postings the same courtesy.  I did read your entire posting,
both before and while responding.

>
>Further, there are net authorities, they're known as node coordinators.
>You didn't think that computer networks maintained themselves, did you ?

You are again showing your ignorance of the net.  By net 
authority, I mean someone in control of the entire net.
There are no such people.  A node coordinator is in charge
of his/her site and no more.  You may complain to my site
admin, but he can only stop me from posting from this site.
No one person has the authority to stop anyone from posting to the
net from any given site.

>
>The definition of harassing e-mail is "any mail which the sender could not
>reasonably expect the recipient to welcome". Also, when I post an article
>in which I say in so many words that 60% of the faculty (roughly speaking) are
>pretty good guys, and I get my reader filled with letters filled with language
>that would make a dock worker blush, complaining about how I shouldn't call all
>professors (fill in your favorite expletitive), I'm really not sure what you
>can call that other than harassment.

I would have taken this to email, but I didn't think you'd have
welcomed it.  In fact, I think that you wouldn't welcome
*any* email that disagrees with you.  I can't reasonably
expect you to welcome this, simply because it disagrees with
you.  And anyone that disagrees with you either has a hidden
agenda or an axe to grind, right?  Has anyone that has disagreed
with you not been termed an idiot or some such term?

>
>
>Now, I'm going to continue posting (on different topics) whether or not this
>idiot likes it or not. If Robert continues to attribute comments to me that I
>never made, I'll sue him for libel, and with our posts easily accessible, he

Where are "our posts" easily accessible?  Please get a clue
on how the net works.  I've offered you some advice on reading
news.announce.newusers.  Please take it.

>[legal info about libel deleted]

>Comply with the law, Robert, or I'll pursue this matter with the appropriate
>authorites. By the way, I hope I don't have to tell anyone what having such an
>ethical breach on your record does to your academic future. What I say to Rob,
>goes for anyone else who tries anything else as cute.
>
>Did I mention that the University of Illinois student legal services dept. is
>available for help when the other disputant is not affiliated with the
>University ?
>

Did I mention that the Georgia Institute of Technology student
legal services dept. is available for help when the other disputant
is not affiliated with the Institute?  If I haven't, the reason
for that is that it's irrelevant.  I also haven't mentioned that
I prefer not to swim.  So?  I haven't done anything to merit
legal action.  I haven't insulted you or threatened you (though you
have done so to me and/or others).  I have merely argued with you.  
I happen to hold a different opinion than you do, and I'm able to 
back it up with facts.  At the worst, I've been a bit sarcastic.

>I'm not taking any more abuse from this corner. I've been more than patient.
>If it happens again, appropriate steps will be taken. And if anyone thinks
>that I'm being too nasty here, stow it ! That's life in the big city.

Posting here is life in the big city.  If you can't accept that
some people don't agree with you, stow it!  That's life in 
the big network (1/2 :-).

>
>Comments from the peanut gallery will not be necessary. Anyone who agrees with
>Rob can't be playing with a full deck of cards.

Read this to be "anyone who doesn't agree that I hold the only one,
true opinion of how the world works" is stupid.

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers