From: Richard Tax (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 13:36:56 PDT
Well Joe, I believe Norm's paper is accurate and more reasonable than the Shortage
Propaganda we have been getting from Corporate America, the U.S. government, NSF, our
College Empire, College Placement Council, the Engineers Joint Council (EJC) now known
as American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) and the American Electronics
Association (the other AEA). Oh, I neglected to mention IEEE's part in spreading
Engineer Shortage Propaganda, but I can verify that too.
I have seen too much shortage propaganda for the last 25 years from these
hypocrites. All have a history of generating lies and fabrications about engineering
manpower shortages. And, they know nothing about engineering.
Joe, what you fear is the truth and that some one may read and support Norm's
facts. And, it's about time somebody opposed and stood up to your shortage shouting
friends. If Norm's paper makes your blood boil, then I know Norm has and is doing the
Richard F. Tax
VP American Engineering Association, Inc.
Joachim Feise wrote:
> Norm Matloff wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:13:07AM -0700, Joachim Feise wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 email@example.com wrote:
> > > > > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
> > > > I remember reading this a couple years ago just after it was presented.
> > > > Unfortunately ever word of what he says is true.
> > > Well, it is not.
> > > Of course, the anecdotal things he quotes from newspapers may be true,
> > > but given the way newspaper editors work, these things are likely to be
> > > blown out of proportions and sensationalized.
> > > Age discrimination sure exists in some instances, but Norm Matloff makes
> > > it sound as if this is the rule, without giving sound (and provable) evidence.
> > > This is a bad approach, one that lobbying organizations take.
> > > Because of this, everything he says in that paper is suspect.
> > Hey, Joe, why don't you actually try READING my paper. There's
> > a lot more than just anecdotes, with lots of cited data, graphs,
> > tables etc.
> > Norm
> You may remember that we had the same discussion before.
> And repeating the assertion that I didn't read it doesn't make
> the paper any better.
> In fact, I have read parts of it, but couldn't stand reading the
> whole thing because my blood started to boil reading unsubstantiated
> It still is a biased lobbying paper, and therefore not really worth
> serious consideration.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 13:50:19 PDT