Houston, You Have a Problem

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
He didn't say "nothing can be told" he said "nothing can be told about
your ability to teach".

This is all so pointlessly confrontational and typical Usenet arguing
wherein rigor is applied when it serves a personal end and tossed aside
when it doesn't. You know that rigorous logic says that nothing can be
foretold about the sun rising tomorrow from the fact that the sun rose this
morning. But so what? Humans have been applying heuristic rules for ages to
try to predict the future - and still are.

So somebody who gets great grades is a reasonable heuristic for predicting
their success at teaching. Of course it's not perfect - but it sure beats
hiring dopes to teach who flunked all their courses.

As it stands, you and Morgans are fundamentally claiming that the following
three numbers are identical:

A) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with very high grade point averages.

B) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with average grade point averages.

C) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with zero grade point averages.

Anyone care to put real money behind their silly Usenet bravado and
needless confrontational style of "debate"? If so I'm willing to bet money
the above three numbers will be very different.

On Jul 21, 11:14 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Danny Deger" wrote in message

ps.com...



And the best you can do is pick on my spelling and my typos? You can
do better than that.

For what purpose?



Why don't you attempt to pick on my documents that confirm gross
misconduct on the part of NASA management? They are posted for you to
look at.

You posted no documents that confirm gross misconduct on the part of NASA
management.

Here is the one proving NASA (Jackie Reese) lied to my doctors to have
me locked up
http://dannydeger.net/Documents/Rees...%20Doctors.pdf

Here is the documenting my actual behavior in this time period.
http://dannydeger.net/Documents/Jeff%20Bertsch's%20Comments%20on%20Danny%20Deger.h tm

Here is the one documenting NASA acted with a local judge to have my
due process denied.
http://dannydeger.net/Documents/Rees...of%20Venue.pdf

Here is the one proving Vanessa Bowen, a Human Resources
Representative, presented herself as a medical professional to my
doctor
http://dannydeger.net/Documents/Stone%20Bowen.pdf

Hope this helps. Is this enough, or do you need more? I have
complete sets of these documents.

Danny Deger

"Danny Deger" wrote

I did read the post, and I stand by the statement it is ridiculous to
state a single thing about teaching ability can not be gleaned from a
transcript. Intelligence and education are necessary to be a teacher
and those traits show up on a transcript.

Do some research.

Some of the most intelligent people in the world have NO ability to teach.
None.

Seems that everything is so natural to them, they can not understand why
their students don't understand what is being shown to them.

This is FACT.

I'm done here. Amuse yourself as you see fit.
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 21, 11:28 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
He didn't say "nothing can be told" he said "nothing can be told about
your ability to teach".

This is all so pointlessly confrontational and typical Usenet arguing
wherein rigor is applied when it serves a personal end and tossed aside
when it doesn't. You know that rigorous logic says that nothing can be
foretold about the sun rising tomorrow from the fact that the sun rose this
morning. But so what? Humans have been applying heuristic rules for ages to
try to predict the future - and still are.

So somebody who gets great grades is a reasonable heuristic for predicting
their success at teaching. Of course it's not perfect - but it sure beats
hiring dopes to teach who flunked all their courses.

As it stands, you and Morgans are fundamentally claiming that the following
three numbers are identical:

A) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with very high grade point averages.

B) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with average grade point averages.

C) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with zero grade point averages.

Anyone care to put real money behind their silly Usenet bravado and
needless confrontational style of "debate"? If so I'm willing to bet money
the above three numbers will be very different.

Thank you, I agree. This arguing about grade point averages and
ability to teach is simply thread divergence from the topic on hand.
Does my documentation support my allegations of NASA management
misconduct?

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

On Jul 21, 11:40 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Danny Deger" wrote



I did read the post, and I stand by the statement it is ridiculous to
state a single thing about teaching ability can not be gleaned from a
transcript. Intelligence and education are necessary to be a teacher
and those traits show up on a transcript.

Do some research.

Some of the most intelligent people in the world have NO ability to teach.
None.

Seems that everything is so natural to them, they can not understand why
their students don't understand what is being shown to them.

This is FACT.

I'm done here. Amuse yourself as you see fit.
--
Jim in NC

I agree. Talking about grade point averages and ability to teach gets
away from the topic of this thread. We can all agree some very smart
teachers are lousy instructors, but we can also agree you need some
intelligence and some education to teach a technical subject.

Danny Deger

Danny Deger wrote:
Does my documentation support my allegations of NASA management
misconduct?

I don't know as I haven't read through it all. You also have to realize
that to do a proper judgement I'd have to see what material the other
parties present to support their sides. But even if I did read it all and
agreed with you, I'm not sure what that would accomplish.

I'm just someone who reads rec.aviation.piloting because I have an interest
in the subject (side note: I do not normally read any of the other groups
this is being crossposted to.) Reading through your material sounds like a
lot of work - more than I care to do I'm afraid. As I get older I've
learned that it isn't possible to join in every cause.

I will say that the documentation you've provided supports the contention
that you are obviously very bright and technically astute. Sorry you've had
such a tough run of it.

On Jul 22, 12:05 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Danny Deger wrote:
Does my documentation support my allegations of NASA management
misconduct?

I don't know as I haven't read through it all. You also have to realize
that to do a proper judgement I'd have to see what material the other
parties present to support their sides. But even if I did read it all and
agreed with you, I'm not sure what that would accomplish.

I'm just someone who reads rec.aviation.piloting because I have an interest
in the subject (side note: I do not normally read any of the other groups
this is being crossposted to.) Reading through your material sounds like a
lot of work - more than I care to do I'm afraid. As I get older I've
learned that it isn't possible to join in every cause.

I will say that the documentation you've provided supports the contention
that you are obviously very bright and technically astute. Sorry you've had
such a tough run of it.

If you like to read good flying stories, download and read my book --
or at least the first half of it. I did my best to make it read like
a techno-thriller about modern fighter combat. I also have good
stories about flying light aircraft.

Thanks for taking the time to post a message.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 21, 7:24 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Danny Deger" wrote:
P.S. You can find a copy of my transcripts at
http://www.dannydeger.net/Documents/Transcripts.pdf

I can see how taking "History of Witchcraft" would come in handy for
engineering work. :-)

It really was a good class. Great instructor. I learned the correct
answer to this question, "How many accused witches were burned at the
Salem witch trails?" Anybody know how many?

Yes. Geesh, you took a class to learn it was zero?

And why did Giles Corey allow himself to be pressed to death rather than
hanged? Did they teach you that?



Danny Deger


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.


I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.

Don't worry Derek, I'm sure all the lurkers support him. :-)


Seriously, Danny, I have not read your book. When I get a chance I may.
However, the problem is, based on your other comments here, I, like others
have already formed opinions in regards to you and your credibility.
Whether your book can chance that remains to be seen.

As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic). There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can post that proves
your story. For the completely cynical, all the documentation you're
posting could be made up. That's the worse case scenario in a sense. I'm
not accusing you of that, but simply pointing out that your documentation
can't by itself prove anything since it can't be independently corrobarated.
It can only suggest and imply.

Again, I repeat my suggestion, if you really truly believe you have a case,
get an investigative writer to help you and to do some of their own
research.

In addition, unfortunately for your case, the excerpts you've posted
previously do seem to indicate a "I TOLD THEM and no one listened." (and
no, I'm not referring to the meetings and lock you're referring to.) Which
may be completely true, or may be your intepretation of events.

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.




--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Wow, Greg. For a person who typically does a decent job with post
structure, there were enough glaring mistakes in your reply to make me
wonder whether you did it intentionally. Ha!

chance = change
corrallary = corollary
corrobarated = corroborated
worse = worst
intepretation = interpretation
mind = mine


~ CT


From Greg Moo
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.

Don't worry Derek, I'm sure all the lurkers support him. :-)

Seriously, Danny, I have not read your book. When I get a chance I may.
However, the problem is, based on your other comments here, I, like others
have already formed opinions in regards to you and your credibility.
Whether your book can chance that remains to be seen.

As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic). There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can post that proves
your story. For the completely cynical, all the documentation you're
posting could be made up. That's the worse case scenario in a sense. I'm
not accusing you of that, but simply pointing out that your documentation
can't by itself prove anything since it can't be independently corrobarated.
It can only suggest and imply.

Again, I repeat my suggestion, if you really truly believe you have a case,
get an investigative writer to help you and to do some of their own
research.

In addition, unfortunately for your case, the excerpts you've posted
previously do seem to indicate a "I TOLD THEM and no one listened." (and
no, I'm not referring to the meetings and lock you're referring to.) Which
may be completely true, or may be your intepretation of events.

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.

--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL