|
|
Note: This account is no longer active.
About wickengel
|
|
Member:
|
Wilson F. Engel III Ph.D.
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
|
wickengel
|
|
Location:
|
Nashua, NH
|
|
Member Since:
|
May 21 '00
|
Thinker, Writer, Editor, Inventor, Novelist: The Virtue of Baseball (www.puff-adder.com), Poet
more
|
Activity Summary
|
|
Reviews Written: 259
|
|
Member Visits: 4,026
|
|
Total Visits: 33,819
|
|
|
About wickengel
|
Married Happily 31 Years
Exceptional Wife
2 Exceptional Children
"I love to read."
Academics:
BA, MA, PhD English Lit
Leverhulme Professor U Edinburgh
Chair, English-Comms Allentown College
100 Academic Publications
Awards, etc.
Financial Backgound:
CLU, ChFC, Mgt Cert, Studying MSFS, MSM
NASD 32 then 7
NYLIC, Janney-Montgomery-Scott
Medical Background:
Lead Concepts Medical Defense Performance Review
Inventor/Developer Medical Software
Founded Disease Control NL Special Mission of the US Navy
SEVP of Medical Software Firm
100 Articles on Disease Control and Biological Warfare
Some Other Background:
US Navy OPS/INTEL/SPECIAL
Diplomate National Security Management
15 1/2 Years National Think Tank
2 Book Length Studies
100 White Papers
Concept Lead/IR&D Elex, Comms, Etc.
And More:
One Novel
Three Books of Poetry
Founded Four Journals, Two eZines
Technologies:
Cutting Edge Across the Board - Name It
from Meteor-Bounce Comms to Global C4I
Languages;
Lots, a Special Interest
Major Latin Translator
And:
Swim, Tennis, Tae Kwon Do, Hiking
SAT 1600, GRE 1480
MENSA Life Member
Former Member ISPE, OATH, TNS, etc.
I will read ALL your work, earliest to most recent. I do not think that a single epinion can tell me much about you or your work. For the HR your epinion must have:
1. Unity, coherence and emphasis
2. Both Sides (or as many as are possible) given fair time
3. Conclusiveness -- having a clearly stated thesis
4. Generally literate (your use of punctuation, if nonstandard, is consistent)
5. Reasonable in approach -- including argumentative (but not strident) language
6. Reasonably detail oriented -- giving explicit bases for judgments
7. Consideration for nature (level/difficulty) of material addressed
8. Character -- who you are -- your "ethos" as expressed in your writing (liveliness, panache, brio)
Two things I cannot and will not tolerate:
1. Attacking ad hominem or ad feminam
2. Attacking based on agreement or lack of same vis-a-vis the opinion itself
I believe that a careful and reasoned argument against what I like is as valuable as (if not more valuable than) the same argument in behalf of what I like. My liking or disliking a view or product is beside the point. I will, however, either write an objection in the notes (if I feel strongly enough about the matter) or write a separate epinion, recording the source of my difference.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.