Thank God you are not marking my papers or those of my students!! (tongue firmly in cheek!)
-----Original Message-----
From: duncanwil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Mon 22/04/2002 19:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Health Economics - Stephen King in the Independent
Sorry, Roger, that's not a very good defence.
Maybe it was all a bit tongue in cheek. Nevertheless, he carries a grand
title with a major international bank.
Since I left academe and began moving in more commercial circles, I have
learned that the message is a vital factor in success and interpersonal
relationships.
Since King is being sold as an academic economist then I expect much better
of him: his D at A level still stands!
Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: "r.loxley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Health Economics - Stephen King in the Independent
> Not that I'm defending Stephen King but I ought to point out that he is an
> academic economist not a journalist. His title is a progression from when
> he was European Economist at HSBC under Roger Bootle - no-one could
describe
> him as non-academic. I suspect that Stephen has more academic
> qualifications in Economics than many of us!
>
> Roger Loxley
> Head of Economics
> Royal Grammar School, Newcastle
> ex-Economist at HSBC (many years ago!)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: duncanwil <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Health Economics - Stephen King in the Independent
>
>
> > Great, Chris!
> >
> > You have said very effectively what I was thinking!
> >
> > One of my bug bears is commentators in British newspapers and magazines:
I
> > find very little room for them since they generally add such little
value.
> > Book reviewers I can live with, of course!
> >
> > As a vegetarian, I was doubly worried until you clearly pointed out the
> > error of everyone else's ways!
> >
> > As for King's message, I tend to view such things in the way of an A
level
> > student and grade them accordingly: a 'D' for this, I think. King has
said
> > some sensible things but his style is constrained and far too general.
> > Rather than waste so many acres of forestry with such a questionable
level
> > of debate, he could have given firm reasons for his doubts and
enlightened
> > us all in the process. After all, King is "managing director of
economics
> at
> > HSBC": now there's a title to discuss!!
> >
> > Duncan Williamson
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Rodda" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Health Economics - Stephen King in the Independent
> >
> >
> > > Hmmm Geoff - one difference between academic economists and the press
I
> > hope
> > > is our ability to use a better form of logic. Comparing Chairman Mao
and
> > > Gordon Brown is a rhetoric device used to make emotional appeals -
such
> as
> > > Hitler was a Vegetarian thus Vegetarians are fascists which is a
typical
> > > trick -" Spoiling the well" is the logicians term for this invalidity.
> > >
> > > The cure for this is to substitute other phrases - for example -
Hitler
> > wore
> > > trousers, you are wearing trousers, thus you are fascist.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ================================================
> Standard Disclaimer:This message is confidential. You should not copy it
or disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information
only for the intended purpose. Internet communications are not secure and
therefore the Royal Grammar School Newcastle does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions
presented are only those of the author and not those of the Royal Grammar
School Newcastle. If this email has come to you in error please delete it
and any attachments. Please note that the Royal Grammar School Newcastle may
intercept incoming and outgoing e-mail communications.
>
>
|
