I don't see any significant flaws in my argument (we are not in court). You misunderstood my point and now keep nit-picking for some reason. Let me rephrase the sentence that seems to be bugging you - only pricks would call PhDs irrelevant since they (PhD holders) are responsible for most discoveries. Better wording now?Patriot1208 wrote: Things just got really confusing. You made a flawed argument, I pointed it out, you then pwned me by saying I went to devry, and I'm the one who is supposed to be mad?
1. You - "Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives."
2. Me - "should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries?""
3. You - "Your post implied that demanding to be called a doctor is ok because people with PhD's are responsible for a lot of discoveries."
You seem to have misunderstood my point, which is evident in #3 (I implied that it is wrong to call PhDs irrelevant, I never implied that they should be called Doctors since they made a lot of discoveries). Do you see it now, Esquire? Sir? Doctor of Law?