Your post on this topic, two notches down questioning a Rice University professor: "I know a lot of professors who have plagiarised to obtain PhDs. So I would never accept a professor's word to technical details."
I will safely ignore your frivolous replies. You are anything but rational.
I'm not talking specifically about this professor. I'm stating that in my experience of seeing various professors plagiarizing their qualifications I inherently don't trust their word. I instead trust technical details. That is rational.
Irrational is when you trust someone's word as the holy grail.
I have seen my fair share of such instances that warrants my apprehensions. Any rational person would ask for technical details not just me.
> I will safely ignore your frivolous replies
You can "safely" ignore my "frivolous" replies considering that you rely on conspiracy theories rather than actual facts. Like I said in the post below, I do not claim the system to be perfect but I would rather see someone come out with a technical rebuttal than sensationalise. If that part of what I said is lost on you then I can do nothing about it. There is no stronger an attack on the government than going technical which is what is lacking in all these articles. By sensationalising and spreading fake letters all you are doing is strengthen the government's position.
Has there been any allegation against Rice University professor? So you are willing to undermine every professor out there due to one encounter of yours, but you are willing to trust the government all too quickly. On top, you dole out 'fake news' moniker generously too. Pretty rational.
Also, the plagiarism example: Guy had already obtained his Ph.D from a UK university, and the said Ph.D. was not obtained on basis of that plagiarised paper. Pretty big allegations you have been levelling on basis of something that you are not even comprehending correctly.
> Has there been any allegation against Rice University professor? So you are willing to undermine every professor out there due to one encounter of yours, but you are willing to trust the government all too quickly
All I am stating is that I trust technical details not the person. It can be the CTO, CEO, Professor or any Tom, Dick or Harry including the Government of India. I don't care about anyone's "words" but the fine print. As far as Professors are concerned, it is my experience and hence also adds to my reasoning. You can't stop me from deducing based on my reasoning can you?
As far as Government goes, I don't say I "trust" the Government. I support the policy decisions of the Government because it aligns with my wishes too. If it wavers or does something contrary to my wishes I'll stop supporting it. It's as simple as that. There is no need to conflate this any further than what it actually is. If tomorrow, the Government is indeed found to be complicit in handling of Aadhaar biometrics you can safely assume that i'll actively stop supporting it.
> On top, you dole out 'fake news' moniker generously too
Okay let's forget the contents of the letter. Can you at least show me one piece of article or something that confirms that the Supreme Court judges are in receipt of this letter? It's not just written to the CJI but also to 10 other Judges of the Supreme Court including one who recently came out stating he is not in favour of the Government: Justice J Chelameswar. At least one of them can confirm receipt of this letter. Right?
As far as official documents are concerned, they always have a seal accompanying them with an official signature. Which document in that letter has this basic requirement? The only document that looks official is a screenshot of email communication between the UIDAI team. That email communication also has nothing incriminating.
> Also, the plagiarism example: Guy had already obtained his Ph.D from a UK university, and the said Ph.D. was not obtained on basis of that plagiarised paper. Pretty big allegations you have been levelling on basis of something that you are not even comprehending correctly.
No his Ph.D thesis was also found to be plagiarised. In fact, that was what resulted in his transfer (and I came to know just now that he was also removed from holding any Governmental positions. That is why he is now appointed as a Vice Chancellor of a private university). I just took a look at the article again and the links that lead to the newspaper article which mentioned that are unfortunately dead. If I find a copy of that i'll surely put up the link to it. It still doesn't take away from my fact that a professor, a Director of a premier institute no less, plagiarised papers. This coupled with many other instances I have experienced force me to not trust their words. A lot of prominent professors in Academia always publish their papers. No one says "take me for my word". If the "words" of professors were all that was necessary you wouldn't need publishing and peer reviews.
Re-read my post again. I have clearly mentioned I don't have a conflict of interest. It's ridiculous that I even need to mention this explicitly once. And now have to reassert myself twice. I never knew having a contrary opinion automatically makes you an agent of the government. So much for "inclusiveness".
For your convenience I'll quote what I wrote in my previous comment: "It always sounds government'ish to people who rely on conspiracy theories. I am an open supporter of the Government in many policies. As far as conflict of interest with this project I am no way connected to the UIDAI project. So don't try to find connections where there are none."
Is this clear enough or you want some other proof?
