Hate mail from Joe Cambria

Incidently, for my posts on DDT I went to the library and looked up the facts in books and even posted extracts for all to see.

Wow. I sincerely hope the spittle didn't short out his keyboard and monitor.

He does know that academics don't use a punch clock, right? How the hell does he know that you're blogging on "company time"? Unless you pull out a laptop in the middle of a lecture: "Hang on a minute, class. I just thought of something new to put on my weblog, and it just can't wait!"

you have never spent any length of your adult life outside a campus environment funded by mugs like and Tim Blair and me who have to scratch a living in the big outside world. You have done your best to hurt Tim B from a vantage point of doing so while on the taxpayer dole-out. Not only that, but you implicitly criticize and abuse the very system which keeps you tenured, you fucking creep.

As someone who has spent his entire adult life outside of academia (with the exception of the years I spent loading mail-sacks to put myself through University at night); who probably pays substantially more tax than you and who runs his own business, I'm going to depart from my normal standard of courtesy and tell you to fuck YOURSELF.

Blair, as a reporter for a major paper, is probably every bit as isolated from reality as the average academic.

His writings suggest he and reality are barely on speaking terms.

The DDT story is a case in point. You are too fucking lazy and stupid to get off your arse and read a little more than the stuff you google, as though that is the only thing around. Rather than go to the library and pick up a book or two about this monstrous act committed by " the thinking types" like you where the truth comes out and in detail, you point people to lefty bogsites that are just as corrupt and dishonest about the truth as you are.

"Corrupt and dishonest" - good thing defamation laws don;t apply on the internet - oh wait.

Feel free to list all the books on the subject of DDT you've read.

BTW, the reason for citing websites rather than off-line texts isn't because they're "corrupt and dishonest", its because the reader can go to the site and read the piece in its entirity.

People like to peddle this myth that academics are somehow lazy and pampered.

Working at a university (I don't) is one of the most thankless, overworked, undervalued ways to pass your time I can think of, except for a handful of professors, who are usually senior and have earnt their positions.

There might be lazy academics, just as there are lazy people in any profession, but most of them are there for passion rather than cash or luxury.

The nasty commenter is suffering from a severe case of conspicuous indignation. Thinks he/she works harder than anyone else and the country would fall apart otherwise. Thinks every other person who is slightly different from them is probably a slacker who owes them something. His/Her life is probably miserable and he/she is upset because they think that is the fault of everyone else who they reckon is not paying their way.

Re DDT: I'm sure you noticed Ms Devine has weighed in.

There's fun and value to be had in a good argument, which is one reason why I enjoy this site so much.

But the sad truth is that many people on the internet are seriously mentally ill.

This one surely is.

Goodbye Mr Troll, surely you won't be back after your last sentence. Don't let the door hit you in the arse as you leave.
And David, when did being a fuckwit become a mental illness?

Was that Tim Blair?

Stupidity + true paranoia.

Gee I thought I was bad. Thank you for posting it as a reality check

Thanks for sharing that Timbo.

It's sorta like Louis "Have I told I work with rocks?" Hissink or John "A leftist took my baby!" Ray - but without the emphysema.

Nope, it doesn't sound like Tim Blair.

It's the fact that it seems you have never spent any length of your adult life outside a campus environment funded by mugs like and Tim Blair and me who have to scratch a living in the big outside world.

After all, I have no evidence to believe Mr. Blair is schizoid, and I've never seen him talk about himself in third person. The tone is also different - more angry Lee J. Cobb in "12 Angry Men" angry than Tim B.'s usual snark.

Remember, people like this were put on this world to make the rest of us thankful that we are not like them.

Aside from the chronic underinformedness that this guy doesn't know how hard professors work, we must remember that there is a fraction of our population - likely in double-digits - that think similarly to this here feller.

D

Many professors work very hard. But some most certainly do not. There is no better place to hide than a university department if you want an easy life.

Many professors work very hard. But some most certainly do not. There can be no better place to hide than a university department if you want an easy life.

Many professors work very hard. But some most certainly do not. There can be no better place to hide than a university department if you want an easy life.

And exactly what is your justification for this claim. State universities in the US have targets for teaching loads and publication rates for individual staff. In the UK the RAE guarantees that most lecturing staff in universities that want any funding must be publishing regularly.

Universities are certainly not, on the whole, the sleepy places they once were.

And exactly what is your justification for this claim.

I have worked as a professor in AU, UK, and US. And you are right: my comments do not apply to the US - their higher-ed system is generally vastly superior to Australia's.

The RAE in the UK is certainly better than any corresponding scheme in Australia, but deadwood doesn't care about funding anyway, so research assessment is largely irrelevant for weeding them out.

Australia's higher-ed is terrible for a country of our wealth - you only have to look at global comparisons to see that.

deadwood doesn't care about funding anyway

Departments in the UK are rated firstly by the quality of the research staff submitted to the RAE, and secondly by the proportion of staff submitted to the RAE. Most reputable universities are pushing for good scores on both measures, thus staff who are not research active are being encouraged to leave.

Departments are now seriously looking in to hiring universities teachers (i.e. not research active), but they aren't likely to be paid much. The exceptions to this are the semi-retired professionals (at least in my area of accounting), but they tend to be far from deadwood.

Good for the UK.

Watch the NTEU fight long and hard against any similar measures being introduced in Australia, Mediocrity is their moniker.

In the UK the RAE guarantees that most >lecturing staff in universities that want any >funding must be publishing regularly.

I take it you say regularly meaning frequently - a one paper/1-2 years regular publishing cycle doesn't hold much sway I suppose. Mathematics is a slower field for publishing maybe. And then there is the ArXiv - hardly counted as publishing in the eyes of the mandarins in london/canberra.

Are slow-producing departments to be closed? I presume not publishing every time the machine goes beep leads to higher quality research through thoroughness. Frequency is not a good guide. Peer-determined quality is .

Last I had anything to do with it, the RAE took your best 4 papers from the past 4 years. That's a pretty good rate. Barring some weird "hole yourself up for 7 years so you can grab Fermat's last theorem for yourself" patch, most academics should be able to produce a paper a year on average that they're proud of.

In Australia's f*cked up academic environment, pure numbers are all that matter. Which leads to the absurd mechanism of maximal career advancement (employed by many academics) through publication of as many minimally acceptable (and mostly forgetable) papers as possible.