Wednesday, July 22, 2009

No degree - no debate

At MJ's request I have removed the original post. She says it has personally identifying details despite my having removed her name before publishing it. Initially she emailed me on Tuesday asking for my qualifications. I responded that I was not University educated. Not satisfied with that response she then asked the same question via my blog creating a strong impression that she was keen to expose what she views as my inadequacy publicly.

I have never pretended to have letters after my name. Similarly I have no art qualifications - not even a pass in school certificate art - but because I receive commissions, exhibit and sell my work I describe myself as an artist. This is also, according to one commentor yesterday, unacceptable.

I am still waiting for a substantive argument about the content of my paper rather than attacks on my suitability to produce it.

MJ, if you do not want your emails to me made public, don't send any.

32 comments:

KG said...

But of course, Lindsay-weren't you aware that truth and accuracy depend entirely upon qualifications awarded by an academia riddled with postmodernist garbage and ideological corruption?
You silly woman you. ;-)

Anonymous said...

How on earth did she get a university degree if she doesn't have enough intelligence to make sure she always has protected sex.
Fancy being so naive as to believe a blokes "I'm not fertile" story.

DyannT

brian_smaller said...

Typical academic superiority complex. I have a degree therefore am morally superior to you all.

Also a typical leftie tactic of attacking the messegner and not debating the message. They do it as easily as breathing.

Crampton said...

I've got a PhD, so I don't have to listen to her complaint, apparently.

SimonD said...

These sorts of Ad Hominem attacks are disappointing. However at least you know up front that the person isn't worth engaging in debate.

I look forward to reading your report when it is released for public ocnsumption.

Lindsay said...

The PDF is available at
http://www.nzbr.org.nz/

Lucy said...

She has a BA in psychology says it all really.

Now if it was a BCom like me.......

An Education is not a guarantee of intelligence a fact proved in spades by this woman.

MJ said...

Man, you guys are RUDE. To call yourself a 'researcher' you should have a qualification in research. The very tenet of research is that 'correlation does not equal causality', a point missed in the opinion paper written by Lindsay. And as for me being a 'snob', pot kettle black. At least you have your lackeys defending you. BTW no conraceptive method is 100% effective. Guess single people just shouldnt have sex!!!!! This was a PRIVATE communcation and I did not give my approval to publish it. I am SO glad that your paper has sunk without a trace as it was ill informed, with a selective literature review, spurious correlations, and a biased conclusion. Last time that I bother with you rednecks. Bye

sean14 said...

Keep up the good work Lindsay.

Lucy said...

Bye Bye MJ you wont be missed.

MJ said...

Loved Paul Williams' reply to you re the rigour of this 'research' on Kiwiblog, Lucy.

MJ said...

Did any of you actually read the report, or are you basing your arguments on the right wing belief system that you seem to hold so dear? I guess I gave you a double target (unwittingly as Lindsay posted this behind my back - trusting people again!! When will I learn!!) - a leftie intellectual AND a single mum who's been on a benefit! Get stuck in guys, if it makes you feel superior :)

Im not the one publishing biased opinions as 'research' and then expecting changes in policy as a result. Accuracy and truth arent dependent on qualifications, but rigourous research methods are usually something you are taught - it takes years to become a true reseacher. I wouldnt call myself one even with an honours degree. Writing your opinions on a blog is not research!! Also, I didnt ask anyone to 'listen to my complaint' - it was a private correspondence where I tried to work out how on earth this person Id never heard of was qualified to comment on Maori and welfare.

BTW one can be trusting and 'naive' and still be intelligent. They arent mutually exclusive. As is obvious from recent news events. Sometimes shit happens and women put their trust in men who dont deserve it.

Lucy said...

MJ. I was a single Mum too. Difference was I was capable of working to support my son and so I did.

After working for 40 years I am now on a invalids benefit while I wait for a lung transplant so I can go back to work. (I went through all of my savings Before I went on the benefit)

The major difference I see between you and I is that you have a 'poor me victim attitude' the mean people are saying 'unfair' things about people on a benefit.
My attitude is shit happens you do your best if you need help then accept it but work to get yourself out of the situation.
I am doing everything my Doctors tell me. I work out at the hospital gym (pulmanry rehabilitation) I stopped smoking a couple of years ago I try to make my self better.
Its my problem and I appreciate the help I receive from the NZ tax payers. And I do my part in the deal by trying to help myself. That is my part of the deal.

Your bleating about bashing poor little solo mothers is crap.Boo Hoo

MJ said...

Um, sorry Lucy, I work too. Im not a victim. Pick on me all you like :)

Anonymous said...

I notice MJ, the author of the emails, tends to distort what you say. For instance, she accuses Lindsay of saying that children of single mothers “are all doomed to a life of crime and abuse.” Lindsay said no such thing. When someone asks why she wasn’t smart enough to protect herself from pregnancy she turns that into a suggestion that single must never have sex.

When not misstating facts she is contradicting herself. Notice she claimed she has a BA. Notice all she says that the research she was involved with “usually” required researchers to have a post graduate degree. That is called a contradiction. You get that in logic course so maybe she missed it. None of the research she was involved with could possibly require a post graduate degree since she doesn’t have one. Either she lied when she implied she was involved in research, lied about research usually requiring a post graduate degree, or lied about both. But both claims can not be true.

I actually didn’t see anyone attacking her for being a single mother. I was raised by a single mother. I don’t care. No one else did either, from what I read. She does, however, claim that these non-existent attacks “makes you [blog readers] feel superior.” Shame guys, that was what she was trying to do, feel superior by lording her BA over Lindsay. Facts are facts MJ, no matter who says them. Lies are lies, no matter who says them. Apartheid was created by a professor with post graduate degrees and fought by people with no education. Which side would you have been on? Would you dismiss the freedom fighters merely because they didn’t have degrees?

The telling line is MJ’s statement that she wanted to know how Lindsay was “was qualified to comment on Maori and welfare.” Wow! Apparently she believes only an intellectual elite are supposed to be allowed to comment, an elite she thinks she is part of due to a BA degree. Sad really.

MJ said...

I never said I had a BA. I have an honours degree, which is postgraduate. In other words, I had graduated with a BA then did more papers and graduated again.

I didnt personally attack Lindsay, I simply asked her qualifications. A research paper is usually written by a researcher. She is not one. She is a blogger. She is welcome to comment on whatever she likes but she should make it clear upfront that she is not an expert in this subject. That's not elitist, that is common sense. And good practice.

backin15 said...

Lindsay, you seem to resent criticism of your efforts, I think that's very niaive of you. Had you been more thorough in your methods, I think you'd be better able to defend your work.

Lucy, I genuinely wish you well with your health.

Lucy said...

By the way MJ Paul Williams answered my question regarding what research he had that was relying on to challange Lindsay Mitchells he answered he didn't have any.

That was what I suspected I see no need to respond to the questions he asked me as it was obviously an 'attack is the best form of defence' strategy and I cant be bothered going there.

JEM said...

What a way to deal with a personal reproach. Don't handle it yourself, publish it and let the half wits have a go at the sender.

btw Lindsay, have you noticed that true "Artists" would never claim to be so, they prefer to be recognised as artists.

To MJ: I read your comments, they make sense to me

Lucy said...

"btw Lindsay, have you noticed that true "Artists" would never claim to be so, they prefer to be recognised as artists."

Meow!

David said...

I have read MJ's comments today with growing disbelief. If I followed the course of her logic I could only conclude the Weatherston jury today should not have been allowed to rule on his guilt or innocence because they weren't qualified in jurisprudence or psychiatry or whatever discipline one thinks appropriate.

What arrogant snobbery to suggest only those who are suitably qualified should dare to venture an opinion on a subject.

Now, a comment on Lindsay's paper which I have read. I'm an historian and I recognise historical research when I see it. She set out to review the impact welfare in its various forms has had on Maori society. Like any historian she reviewed evidence from a variety of sources. She documented the sources of that evidence. Like any historian she arrived at conclusions based on that evidence. Like any historian she put her research out into the public for comment and debate. Judging by reports in a variety of media yesterday and today her research has generated the usual response historical research generates - debate. Some people agree with her conclusions, some don't. In the study of history there are no correct or incorrect conclusions so long as they are backed by verifiable evidence.

My guess is MJ isn't familiar with historical research and hasn't learned how to evaluate it let alone respond to it. Perhaps she should spend a little time to expand to her horizons to understand disciplines other than her own before denigrating them.

backin15 said...

Lucy, backin15 is the log in I use on blogspot, I'm Paul Williams and with respect, the bait-and-switch approach is pretty transparent. I've not claimed expertise about Maori dependence on welfare, I've commented that Lindsay's paper on the topic does not make out her case.

As for the purile comment "meow" to MJ, you might want to review your own comments, they don't reflect well on you. A point also made by JEM.

Lindsay, why did you publish something without first obtaining permission? Odd.

James said...

On Planet MJ I would assume that before one can be a botanist one must first have lived life as a plant.....?


Silly tit.

KG said...

What David said. Exactly.

Anonymous said...

Pass out the saucers of milk

Dirk

backin15 said...

Lindsay, you've diverted attention from the adequacy of your claims by simply asking someone to disprove them. That's a very poor response. If you've published something, you must be prepared to defend it.

My challenge is that you haven't made out the argument for your recommendations, the recommendations themselves are not well explained and the implications are largely ignored. Why will that make a difference, how much will they cost, what's the risk etc. The piece is descriptive, not analytical, it doesn't clearly link the selective history and data to the policy issues or responses.

There's a rule in law that applies more generally that she who asserts must prove, I think you've not done this.

Also, the challenge about your credentials is a challenge about the rigour of your work. As an artist, you may well know people with rare talent who, without years of study, can produce a masterpiece. However, you'll surely know that most artists spend years learning and practicing their craft, working with mentors, developing expertise and competence.

You'll no doubt dismiss this criticism as eltism but absent some rigour (like an explanation of the methodology), your views are interesting but they're also largely unexaminable.

Finally, unless you have permission to publish something sent by an email, you should assume permissions not given. It's at least discourteous.

Paul Williams.

Lucy said...

Back in what ever. Has I said before meow!!!!!!!!

Lucy said...

BTW David my thoughts exactly well put.

Lindsay said...

Lucy, Would be good if you could e-mail me. My address is at profile. I can't find an address for you.

Heine said...

So not only does MJ carry about a thesaurus with her, she seems fit to also exclaim out loudly that she's not only an authority on who should be a researcher, or not... but that she is a BA hons.

So what. You cannot substitute a lifetime of experience with a silly bit of paper you got for 3 years cosseted up in a University where you most likely hung out with likeminded left wingers.

Life outside University is going to be one hell of a shock to you MJ, I suggest instead of getting all uppity and acting like a silly little know it all (and stop making up fake accounts, JEM) you try and formulate an arguement worthy of somebody of your supposed intellect.

Paul/AKA backin15 is an example of somebody I don't agree with but at least he puts thought into his replys instead of purile child like screeching.

Norrie said...

MJ claimed that he/she :

I have an honours degree, which is postgraduate. In other words, I had graduated with a BA then did more papers and graduated again.

Sorry MJ, people with arts degree like yourself are no more than toilet cleaning qualifications, even with your post-grad either MA or PhD. I specifically aim this comment at you, since the majority of arts post-grad with higher qualifications I know (which my partner has one) don't not boast themselves with the types of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that you have shown towards Lindsay.

Also you said that a research paper is usually written by a researcher.

Yes, but that doesn't apply to the various disciplines including the one that you're in (Sociology , Psychology, etc). I say that Lindsey is well qualified in what's she is doing, because one doesn't need the depth of knowledge gained from a higher qualification as MA or PhD. The subject matter of welfare is not that hard to grasp, even the dole bludgers themselves can fully comprehend the subject or they can do research on the subject without having a formal qualification.

BTW, I have a PhD in Engineering Science and the kind of R&D that I get involved in my daily job requires higher level knowledge and you definitely need to be trained at that higher level post-grad degrees, while something like welfare research, you don't need one. All you need is to be very well familiar with the subject and that is exactly what Lindsay has achieved as a researcher in this field.

PC said...

MJ said: ". . . it takes years to become a true reseacher. I wouldnt call myself one even with an honours degree. Writing your opinions on a blog is not research!! Also, I didnt ask anyone to 'listen to my complaint' - it was a private correspondence where I tried to work out how on earth this person I'd never heard of was qualified to comment on Maori and welfare."

Lindsay, you can't possibly be a researcher, no matter how many years you've been doing research. It takes more to be a decent researcher than knowing how to identify bullshit when you smell it.

Not only do you not have a degree (how dare you, by the way), but MJ hasn't even heard of you!

Just what the hell were you thinking? ;^)