| Author | What is a lunar standstill? |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 17-10-2016 at 19:06
Quote:
| It was Bluestonehenge. Of course, at the time I was in the early days of my archaeoastronomy and didn't really know what to make of what I had done, yet alone discovered! |
|
That's cool Richard. Where did you publish that prediction?
I did a few 'predictions' myself, though they were more lucky guesses than predictions. Back when I did the novel, it predicted the location of Durrington Walls as a larger town and also Blick Mead as a smaller village (even did a map to show where they were). Not a lot of prediction to it though as I just used what was known about the area and then located the sites in the places that would be the most suitable from a services/access point of view.
Also, the shape of houses wasn't difficult to predict (I described them in a bit of detail in the novel). Was never sure why everyone was so surprised that rectangular houses with central hearths would be found with the type of materials available in this region. However, the novel was supposed to be fictional, so all of that was just lucky (and half decent) guess-work rather than any predictive capacity of the hypothesis.
The novel also predicted that there would be two hostelries (pubs) in Durrington Walls. If MPP finds evidence of that, then I'm calling it a proper prediction.
Hi Drolaf
Quote:
| Perhaps we should point out that to qualify for the pudding prize a paper has to be so poorly written that it is unintelligible to the audience it is targeted at, not just any paper that is actually pretty good but the nominator cannot understand it or has not even read it. |
|
Absolutely!
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 19:20
A Look at the Changing Nature of Mathematical Proof.
When is a proof not a proof? To prove or not to prove that is the question.
Aubrey imperial ft units units x 3
897.6 5.2800 170 510 Imperial
897.6 3.9600 227 680 Imperial
897.6 2.6400 340 1020 Imperial
897.6 1.3200 680 2040 Imperial
897.6 0.6600 1360 4080 Imperial
897.6 0.5100 1760 5280 Imperial
897.6 0.4080 2200 6600 Imperial
897.6 5.4400 165 495 Thom
897.6 4.0800 220 660 Thom
897.6 2.7200 330 990 Thom
897.6 1.3600 660 1980 Thom
897.6 0.6800 1320 3960 Thom
897.6 0.4950 1813 5440 Thom
897.6 0.3960 2267 6800 Thom
This table shows how Thom's Aubrey circumference produces megalithic units from imperial measure and imperial units from megalithic measure. It is very simple and shows that both systems are valid at the first phase of Stonehenge and that eclipse prediction is facilitated.
The mathematics embedded in the circumference produces these strange crossover calculations. There are deliberate mistakes in the last two lines of each system.
This simple computer model demonstrates that Thom's system and the imperial system are inextricably linked at the Aubrey.
These numbers were in use 2000 years earlier as demonstrated by Crowhurst at Carnac circa 5200 BCE.
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 19:55
'That's cool Richard. Where did you publish that prediction? '
Richard also predicted that the internal diameter of the sarsens represents one sidereal day.
There are 366 sideral days in a year.
If the megalithic rod represents 7 of these days then 91 days are 88.4 feet
364 days are 353.6 feet 0.7 days are 0.68 feet
364.7 days are 354.28 feet and this is the perimeter of Avebury that Thom discovered.
To agree Richard's findings these numbers need to be multiplied by 100.
The days are actually represented by Roman feet per Macaulay.
using the Michell Heath model for the earth circumference
364.7 x 360 x 1000 = 131292000 feet.
Divide by 45000 to get 56 x 52.1 of these units.
Thom had 52.1 units in the Avebury perimeter.
Thom's perimeter was 52.1 x 68 = 3542.8 feet close enough to touch the Moon's annual cycle.
So the design of Avebury is short by 1.3 sidereal days.
The perimeter would have been 366 x 360 x 1000 = 24954.545 miles.
Take 100 miles off and get the polar circumference of the Earth.
This is 131232000 feet / 40000000 gives 3.2808 feet or 39.3696 inches. Divide this into 100 to get 2.540031.
Is this a proof?
The Heath Michell model already is probably.
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 19:56 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 19:57 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 20:00 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 20:09 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 20:44 ]
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 20:52
I have been working on a model linking the ancient metre to the imperial system but there already is one, it is the Aubrey circle.
The ancient metre is the same length as the modern one but is 39.6 units of 2.525252525252 rec centimetres.
At the Aubrey it converts to Thom's units as follows:
897.6
x 12 = 10771.2 imperiaL INCHES
X 2.525252525252525 = 27200
/39.6 = 686.68686868 REC METRES
/ 1.01010101010 REC = 680.
Other calcs
5280
63360
160000
4040.40404
4000
1320
15840
40000
1010.10101
1000
6600
79200
200000
5050.505051
5000
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2016-10-17 22:24 ]
Profile
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 895
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 21:12
'Right now there is a giant sized moon nearly opposite the rising sun. '
indeed the moon is in the expected position for a full moon.
thanks cropredy for reminding us that the thread subject was the new moon and the lunar cycle.
perhaps posters could address this topic.
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 22:19
thanks cropredy for reminding us that the thread subject was the new moon and the lunar cycle.
perhaps posters could address this topic.
that is exactly what Thom's work is about
6800 days in the lunar cycle
6.8 feet in one of Thom's megalithic rods x 100 units in one foot = 6800.
Thom's second book entitled megalithic lunar observatories. where do you think Simm's ideas have come from?
Profile
Reply
|
ESgt
Joined:
19-10-2010
Messages: 318
from Derbys, Notts, Leics
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2016 at 22:50
'6.8 feet in one of Thom's megalithic rods x 100 units in one foot = 6800'
6.8 x 100 = 680 
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7182
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2016 at 07:57
http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2016 at 09:08
AB - The second section is an argument for prehistoric interest in the 'dark moon' rather than full moon. Also we were discussing in another thread about stone circles as menstrual predictors:
The cycle is 28 days and SH Aubrey translates to 280 this is 10 cycles and equates to the birthing cycle.
Aubrey circle circumference / Thom's meg yard x Harris Stockdale's much woefully maligned meg foot = 280 or 10 x 28.
280 + 84 = 364.
At the sanctuary the number of posts in the circumference is 42. Two periods of 42 days (or 3x 28)gives the number of days from the midwinter birthing time to the spring fertility and procreation festival.280 days later and the key dates of 365 and 366 days are hit. Avebury is a celebration of the male and female act of procreation. Go and have a pint outside the pub if you want to view a celebration of male potency. Read Roy Goutee's book.
'The second section is an argument for prehistoric interest in the 'dark moon' rather than full moon. '
This is only half the picture as the Saros is also the other side of the coin. They designed a system of measurement that reflects the movements of both the Sun and the Moon in all its phases. These are not my ideas read Hoyle and Hawkins.There does not appear to be anything dark and sinister about this knowledge on the contrary the Avebury monument appears to be a place of celebration and wonder depending on an individual's mindset.
So the moon is represented by 25 megalithic yards or 68 feet the megalithic chain as described by David Furlong in the 'Keys to the Temple'
If the foot represents 100 days then 68 feet represents the cycle of the lunar nodes at 6800 days in Robin Heath's book 'Sun Moon & Earth'
The imperial chain ( the length of a cricket pitch at 22 yards) represents the saros cycle of 6600 days.
These two ancient systems of measurement can be found in the canon of ancient measure somehow discovered by Michell and Heath and published in their book 'The Lost science of Measuring the Earth.'
On page 19 the equatorial circumference of the Earth is given by the formula 365.242 x 360 x 1000 = 131487120 feet = 24902.864 miles.
The formula is repeated for the Earth's meridian circumference which is 364.9536 x 360 x 1000 = 131383296 feet 24883.2 miles.
this is described as the canon of all ancient measure and many ancient units are linked to it.
This formula then seems to be the key to all ancient measure and is therefore worthy of further investigation.
the base unit at the aubrey to produce the Saros cycle is 13.2 feet.
using the model 366.666 rec produces the relationship
366.666 x 360 x 1000 = 132000000 = 25000 miles.
To produce the unit that calculates the saros it is necessary to invoke a 'sacred step'
13.20 x 10/9 = 14.66 rec feet.
the formula produces
407.40740740740 rec x 360 x 1000 = 146666666.6666 rec = 27777.777 recurring miles. (note this is a key unit in Franklin's workings at the great pyramid).
this unit of 14.666 rec feet produces the saros as follows
14.666 x 449 = 6585.333 rec the saros
14.666 x 450 = 6600 the imperial chain described above.
So using the canon formula
377.777 rec x 360 x 1000 = 136000000 = 25757 .5757 rec miles this is the base unit for the megalithic yard and nodal eclipse prediction cycle.
366.666 rec x 360 x 1000 = 132000000 = 25000 miles this is the base unit for the chain or rod or saros eclipse prediction unit.
Divide these base units by 2 to get 6600 and 6800.
So the canon of ancient measure is calculated using the imperial system and demonstates the link between solar days and the accurate equatorial circumference.
Does it provide evidence of any other knowledge that the ancients held sacred?
Richard Bartosz has produced a precessional model at SH and indoing so uneathed the Bluestone Henge. The lesser cursus quite easily works as a precession calculation device a piece of ancient scientific equipment.
Bartosz has many times pointed out the importance of the short foot of 0.96 imperial feet.
The precessional cycle is 25920 years.
What does the model produce
380.16 x 360 x 1000 = 136857600 feet = 25920 miles.
380.16 converted into units of 100th of a foot is 3168 units.
The structure of ancient metrology after Michell and Neal is 3168/3125. This is built into the precessional cycle.
But the short foot provides the key evidence.
364.9536 x 360 x 1000 = 131383296 feet 24883.2 miles.
this is described as the canon of all ancient measure and many ancient units are linked to it.
24883.2 in short feet is 25920 the precessional cycle.
This is hard evidence. If the calculations are replicated they will always produce the same results.
There is more to the canon of ancient measure than initially meets the eye.
High powerered blinkers are required to continually ignore this evidence but many on the website are in possession of such.
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1596
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2016 at 11:49
jonm:
re Bluestonehenge
Quote:
| Where did you publish that prediction? |
|
Nowhere publicly! Far too early to do so at the time, and as I was contemplating to do so later MPP beat me to it. However, it was part of my first precession model and even that I didn't actually say anything about, publicly, until 2015.
Having seen MPP's Beatrice de Cardi lecture I did however qualify the prediction directly to MPP as per graphic below. I have three calculations, all of which fall within the maroon circle, so closer to the "real" bank of the River Avon than shown by MPP as in the green coloured inset at bottom - illustrating a comment I made about accurate description of archaeological survey.
The location of Bluestonehenge suggests that there might have been a landing stage before it. So it's a sort of supplementary prediction, which I have made formal by email to MPP in February of this year.
I would suggest that any prediction, whether calculated or "guesses" allied to your work should be made formal, particularly if you can add more concrete justification to the guesses based on your hypothesis.
Mine are mathematically precise.
However, this is not pertinent to the subject of this thread so I'll leave it at this.
With respect to:
Quote:
| Perhaps we should point out that to qualify for the pudding prize a paper has to be so poorly written that it is unintelligible to the audience it is targeted at, not just any paper that is actually pretty good but the nominator cannot understand it or has not even read it. |
|
One needs to find out from Lionel Sims exactly what the "target audience" was envisaged as being before one can judge. If none of the people here fall within the category then of course it would be unfair to "qualify" the paper for "pudding" prize! It may be that there is, or will be a version for the general audience, much like Lynne Kelly is doing/has done with her book. I pointed out a glaring error re Stonehenge in her book, but haven't come across the correction as yet!
Cheers,
Richard
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2016 at 17:42
Quote:
| Nowhere publicly! Far too early to do so at the time, and as I was contemplating to do so later MPP beat me to it. |
|
That's rough Richard. If I've understood, your hypothesis hasn't been made available to anyone else for review and none of its predictions have been published. So it remains confidential for the time-being. However, a formal email has been sent to Mike Parker Pearson with a mathematically precise prediction.
If there is a confidentiality issue, archaeologists will advise that you do not send them any material, even if that could be of help to them: If any ideas happen to coincide with anything they are working on, it could lead to difficulties later about demarcation of the intellectual ownership of the ideas (this could be disastrous if your ideas are not archaeological but do have a commercial value).
Out of interest, what was his response to you when you sent him your ideas?
Quote:
| One needs to find out from Lionel Sims exactly what the "target audience" was envisaged as being before one can judge. If none of the people here fall within the category then of course it would be unfair to "qualify" the paper for "pudding" prize! |
|
No author would respond if they knew that not responding would prevent them from getting a pudding prize.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1596
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2016 at 22:02
Quote:
| However, a formal email has been sent to Mike Parker Pearson with a mathematically precise prediction. |
|
A formal communication has been sent to MPP with regard to accuracy of archaeological recording and extent of geophysical survey.
i) The area concerned is fully within the designated World Heritage Site. The illustration produced in his lecture is inaccurate. I pointed that out.
ii) I made him aware that the presence of a monument was "predicted" in the location illustrated by the maroon circle. The basis of my specific prediction is irrelevant in the context of the feature having been discovered. I didn't detail any of it. The excavation was pursued for archaeological reasons on the basis of MPP's theories. There is no issue of "collision".
iii) The shortcomings in accurate detailing hide the possibility of the excavated part of Bluestonehenge being, possibly, part of a larger bankside complex. I asked if any geophysical survey had been undertaken in that area.
There's nothing "confidential" in my communication. The points are perfectly logical and could have been posed by anyone, had the landform details been accurately presented. That no one has made such references since the find was published is somewhat of a mystery to me, as there are many focused eyes on Stonehenge, looking at it in its finest details. Searches can be made on publicly available sites, such as Pastscapes, Heritage Gateway and MAGIC for records of finds and detailed boundaries of designations. There's nothing outwardly hidden that would prevent a curious mind from posing such issues.
Permission is required to undertake any kind of geophysical survey within such a designated site. Conditions attached to a site like this will be stringent and permission unlikely to be granted to anyone like myself - never mind the issues of land ownership, affordability and status in the normal process of undertaking such a survey even by an academic institution.
So we have a situation where the possibility of Bluestonehenge being part of a larger bankside complex is in the open. It's irrelevant how I came to the conclusion, it's something that should have been identified within archaeology as a distinct matter of consideration, even if the ground conditions make survey and excavation a practical impossibility. Perhaps it has been identified in a paper which I have not come across. If so the source could easily have been included in a reply to my contact. I don't see it as such a big deal really, in terms of identifying missing parts of the puzzle. How the parts are filled is altogether another matter.
It's no different than the post/stone holes issue at Durrington Walls. Except that here we had two separate approaches colliding in interpretation. Did they work together behind closed doors to arrive at a joint answer before publication? Were they concerned about intellectual ownership? Doesn't appear so. The only objective should always be the "truth", as far as can be ascertained. One approach has been proven wrong, in part.
If any ideas coincide, tough. I've already declared that my prediction was based on a precession model, I've illustrated it, very superficially, in a public event. I have more than enough evidence to support my reservation for publishing my hypothesis in any format that I wish.
Where I said:
Quote:
| particularly if you can add more concrete justification to the guesses based on your hypothesis. |
|
I didn't mean that you should disclose the method, just that you have the necessary backup to support your prediction should someone else come to the same or similar conclusion via an independent theoretical approach.
Quote:
| No author would respond if they knew that not responding would prevent them from getting a pudding prize. |
|
There's no way the author can know that. They run the risk of the prize being awarded "unfairly" - in their eyes - anyway. There's no way out for the author! The objective is simply to discover the target audience. It's up to the author to change their ways in subsequent publications, even if the award is mitigated by a credible excuse.
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2016-10-18 22:05 ]
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2016-10-18 22:12 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2016 at 17:50
Quote:
| Did they work together behind closed doors to arrive at a joint answer before publication? Were they concerned about intellectual ownership? Doesn't appear so. |
|
I think you would be surprised. There are intellectual ownership issues concerning ideas (in preference to the potential benefits to society of knowing). A famous archaeologist, one that you probably would know by name, wrote to me to explain it. It's probably what happens when you get entertainment sponsors involved. I've no intention of 'outing' the person involved as it was very kind of him to write (I did ask the question twice just to be sure that I had understood). It is what it is, and is a very different perspective to what I'm used to.
Quote:
| The only objective should always be the "truth", as far as can be ascertained. |
|
There's a tendency to take the subject too seriously Richard. If a discipline produces benefits to society, there is perhaps a duty to approach things in a certain way. But hobbies are different: You're free to write up whatever you have in whatever way suits you.
Out of interest, what was the response to your note?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 895
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 06:26
quote davidk
midwinter birthing time to the spring fertility and procreation festival.
Might I suggest that midwinter is the worst possible time to give birth in terms of mother and offspring survival rates. I doubt they were that suicidal. They would have synchronised births with birth of spring cows, lambs etc.
Profile
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 895
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 06:31
Dear Orpbit I wish you luck with your communications.
In my experience busy academic lecturers and researchers respond very quickly to clear, concise and succinct emails.
by the way, you never replied to my short summary of precession at Stonehenge, after nagging me for it.
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1596
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 10:15
jonm:
Quote:
| Out of interest, what was the response to your note? |
|
A polite thank you. However, in the briefest of replies I didn't get an answer to my question, nor a pointer to where I might do.
As regards "seriousness", you can't equate that with being different because someone is a "hobbyist" - or amateur, if you regard Patrick Moore as such! Yes, there may be different "rules" but I'm talking serious questions, which require a serious answer. As a public servant I was required to answer all questions within a certain period of time. If not met, then investigations and disciplinary procedures possibly followed. Academics are a law unto themselves, but they benefit from a considerable amount of public expenditure. Queries from serious researchers deserve better answers.
drolaf:
Quote:
| Dear Orpbit I wish you luck with your communications.
|
|
With respect, I've had more than a decade of experience with such communications, not to mention during my working life where such were never ignored, presumably because of my status as a public servant. I agree with your experience, but had I kept a log of all my communications (outside of professional capacity) it would be a dataset for illuminating statistical analysis. No point expanding here, but a warm thank you to all those who have engaged in dialogue, some well beyond expectations! But I am no saint either, and sometimes dialogue stalls from my side because I'm following up on points requiring contact with other academics, many of whom have actually ignored my contact attempts (emphasis, plural)...I'll stop it there!
Quote:
| by the way, you never replied to my short summary of precession at Stonehenge, after nagging me for it. |
|
Apologies, but I didn't know that there was a reply necessary. Rather, you clarified your "288", for which I thank you and I should have acknowledged that on the thread (Seahenge). But more pertinently, the object was to inspire discussion and having checked, I do recall thinking that it would be interesting to see if any other comments would be forthcoming - which they, as yet, haven't materialised.
I'll continue there, but in a position of a huge backlog of issues there are other items which I'm working on, including matters involving your posts on other threads. But in time they will be dealt with!
Richard
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12321
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 17:43
> A polite thank you. However, in the briefest of replies I didn't get an answer to my question, nor a pointer to where I might do.
Would you believe I get copied into emails from 'fringe researchers' (shall we say) to Prof MPP - you'd be amazed... No doubt I only see a fraction of them.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 18:04
Quote:
| As regards "seriousness", you can't equate that with being different because someone is a "hobbyist" - or amateur, if you regard Patrick Moore as such! |
|
I's be interested to know how you got to that conclusion Richard. If the wording was unclear, my apologies.
Hi Andy
Quote:
| No doubt I only see a fraction of them. |
|
Wow. Why do they copy you in on the emails Andy?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1596
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2016 at 23:02
jonm:
Quote:
| I's be interested to know how you got to that conclusion Richard. If the wording was unclear, my apologies. |
|
Reference:
Quote:
| There's a tendency to take the subject too seriously Richard. If a discipline produces benefits to society, there is perhaps a duty to approach things in a certain way. But hobbies are different: You're free to write up whatever you have in whatever way suits you. |
|
Rather loaded that one!
I couldn't see any way of responding except that if something is serious then questions should be asked with serious intent, and responses made in equal spirit. Because one may be a "hobbyist" as you put it - interesting as to where you pluck these terms from - doesn't mean that there isn't anything of public benefit to be derived. For me astronomy was a hobby, still is, but archaeoastronomy is a totally different kettle of fish. So when professional archaeologists tell me that what I am doing is of considerable interest, and that I should ignore some archaeologists' sensitivities to the subject matter, then this is what I am doing out of respect for that advice. It's as simple as that. Times are changing.
It's also a bit like:
Quote:
| A famous archaeologist, one that you probably would know by name, wrote to me to explain it. |
|
Well, if he or she is famous, I'm sure I would know of the person but as to whether I knew them personally or had contacted them personally with a seriously framed question is another matter, if you don't name such. So it's a bit irrelevant, as the point anyway, is "ownership" of material, and I've had a working life of dealing with the issue. So whether my experience matches yours or not in terms of perspective, can't be answered.
Quote:
| I think you would be surprised. |
|
Again, quite irrelevant. A serious question is just that. It demands a response of some kind. Silence is a matter of the person's conscience, the person just couldn't give the proverbial or they just had a bad day at the office. The stats of my attempts at contact would distinctly show that there are many academics who fall into at least those basic categories. There is no way of telling which.
cheers.
Profile
Reply
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 895
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-10-2016 at 03:15
quote
Academics are a law unto themselves, but they benefit from a considerable amount of public expenditure.
Dear orpbit
As an auditor you must be aware that much expenditure is on infrastructure and plant, it is not spent all on salaries.
Academics (in Britain anyway) have to adhere to peer review at a high level of scrutiny. They work not just for themselves but for the reputation of their university and field of expertise. Much work is done by PhD ‘students’ who work incredibly hard for what is £7.40 an hour if they did 37 hours a week, but do far more than that, so work at a high level of integrity for far less than minimum wage. Post docs get about twice this but work even harder, so do actually manage to get minimum wage. To continue in the job -they have to continually procure funding, and write papers. They do not have a 9-5 37 hour week, job for life, like many ‘public servants’. Supervisors also work long hours, procure funding, and write papers, as well as lecture and do endless admin. There are perks but not much of the financial variety.
I am not surprised that with such an attitude, and ignorance of other people's lives, you do not get the help you think you are entitled to.
Profile
Reply
|
