Narcissist Nate has RETURNED!
For those of you joining our program already in progress, NN was assaulting me with incessant EMails, the gist of them being disapproval of how I was handling the class and that my assessment of work was not "fair or justified."
He went so far as to elicit "feedback" from other students asking in a general forum if anyone else was "frustrated with the instructor."
Well, he -- or at least his doppelganger -- is back!
This time, he's wised up and given up on a grassroots campaign. Now he's engaging university offices fishing for a contradictory statement with which to catch me. Dear Nate, however, seems totally oblivious to the reality that a publication manual only gives a standard template for how to cite sources; it does not evaluate the quality of said sources.
Nate feels his previous assignments represent such a contribution to the knowledge of the discipline that can serve as the foundation for current coursework. To be clear, we're not talking about his dissertation research on the social attitudes about the difference between short and long hair in hamster fur weaving.
No, Nate wrote a paper last term in Fur Styles 101 which he believes rises to the level of peer-reviewed research being used for assignments in Basic Weaving Techniques 204. He complained that my redirection of his efforts was "condescending."
And since his response from a tutor didn't say "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" but "citing your own work should be done this way ..." I am now staring at a response where he basically says "neener, neener -- toldya I was right!"
OK, maybe I can't use a stick.
Couldn't I at least thrash him with a style manual?
Puleeeeze?
Considering EMH's post prior to this one, this kind of reminds me of a Klingon Pain Stick
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think we keep a copy of the old edition of the Chicago manual around? You won't find a style guide better suited for beating sense into snowflakes anywhere—between the mass, the hard cover, and the bloodstain-concealing jacket, it's perfect!
ReplyDelete"Dear NN,
ReplyDeleteI never said you couldn't cite yourself. I said that if your sources suck, so will your work. D.
Yours sincerely,
AS"
With regard to Nate's "evidence" that someone has told him you were wrong -- yeah, I've had it too.
ReplyDeleteWhiny McWhiner went to the writing center, another instructor, and one of his best buds, all of whom basically told him: "Dude, it sounds like your teacher wanted you to do your paper this other way." That other way: Exactly as described on the assignment sheet.
So, I had to carefully explain to Whiny that he needed to follow directions. When he tried to "catch me" by citing his 3 advisers, I simply replied: "So, then, they all agree with me and told you to do exactly what I told you to do?" That stunned him faster than a phaser rifle. (Pardon the Trek reference.)
In short, you know he's got nothing, right? Consult those above you and see if you can kick the little prick up to them.
And keep telling him that most real scholars do not cite themselves until they are old and gray, or at least established...and, you know, published. And he ain't any of the above.
I'd ignore him at this point. He's just an ignorant crackpot.
@ The Myth
ReplyDeleteDone and done.
Nate's strategy, however, is claiming his ONLY motivation is to be the best goshdurned writer which is why he is just so confused why his "condescending" instructor is telling him the Big Book of Style isn't, actually, yanno, holy scripture.
Before stopping here, I penned a message to admin ("look out, here comes Nate") and the writing center ("perhaps a more concrete self-citation policy is needed as Nate is trolling your staff shopping for a ruling which agrees with his plans).
Problem remains, the Prime Directive for adjuncts is ignore crackpots at your peril, they tend to write the sort of evaluations that end careers.
Something better than a style manual is a nice, thick phone book. Hold it closed, with the spine in one hand and the other hand on the opposite side. Swing it vigorously on a horizontal plane and smack him in the side of the head. It's best if he's sitting down. It will really rattle his cranium, and leave no visible evidence of the impact.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you do, don't use the spine of the book. That will leave a mark.
Yeah, a mark is evidence. The dean-flake may believe everything they say, but evidence that can be photographed can get you arrested.
ReplyDelete