egafd.com

This is a purely semantic argument. Now usually I am always up for some antics but is this case....

It does not matter if Mitchell has her Phd yet or if she is allowed to put Dr in front of her name. What matters is that she is the one running the show and looking out for performers' welfare.

I don't see anyone else volunteering for the job. If sonmeone can present an alternative candidate with the appropraite medical knowledge AND a genuine understanding of the reality of the hardcore business AND a willingness to do the job, then fine.

Until then, please, let the woman do her job. It's an important one and one that is not aided by anonymous hecklers.

It's not purely semantic.

I received my PhD in genetics from a University of London college. I know for a fact that if I had lied about the completion status of my PhD to get a job, my employers would terminate my contract, inform the University of London of my actions. Is this justified? Yes.

1. It is belittling for others who work their nuts of to get a PhD for someone to go around calling themselves Dr. when they haven't even had their bloody oral exam.

2. "Dr. Mitch" is acting without the support of her PhD research group.

3. She is getting a "pay-as-you-go" PhD. Anyone can buy one of those things. You know the hotmail spam you get which advertises "buy your PhD/MBA here"- well that's it.

4. I had to publish peer reviewed papers in reputable journals. I wonder if she has done the same?


The concept she supports is admirable. But in this day and age where an action needs to be supported by credentials, it is vitally important that someone in her position has some!

Rant over.

MonkeyMonkey,

Once more for those who didn't get it first time:

"If someone can present an alternative candidate [to Sharon Mitchell] with the appropriate medical knowledge AND a genuine understanding of the reality of the hardcore business AND a willingness to do the job, then fine."

In the meantime petty whinging about how hard you worked to get your PhD (which is bigger and cleverer than hers) is not only irrelevant, it is unhelpful.

You feel your efforts are being belittled by Miss Mitchell. And I thought the serious problem was controlling a life threatening disease. Now I discover that what we should be worrying about is that "real" PhDs like yourself are not getting their due credit.

In an ideal world, a host of abundantly qualified MDs specialising in STD's would run AIM with a budget of millions. We do not live in such a world. We have to do the best we can with what we have.

Or alternatively, we could all stand around bitching.

Which is more helpful?

Thank god I don't have to put my life in the hands of someone, who on the face of it, is presenting bogus credentials.

Mart