Heh...
Heh...
Lots of references to previous works. But an interesting read.
Table 2.? showing the pre-migration work flow struck me as apt.
All about selecting a "property". One wonders who would "invest" in a property in Thailand.
I immediately thought of the selection of one's future "partner", it being assumed they would be ones "property" after lavashing gold, blocks and cement on them. Luckily at the bottom of the chart was an arrow taking one back to the beginning of the flow chart (For those who cannot decide I suspect, or after finally take off the rose coloured specs.)
A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.
Remembering, though, that the research and work was prepared from a culturally subjective perspective through Thai eyes.
Still, quite reasonable and fair.
One might guess that such a project composed by a Farang with differing experiences, exposure, and material might manifest itself in a completely different form.
jesus, you're fcuking creepy.Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
You are suggesting quoting too many previous works, in my opinion, to pad out your own is somewhat a sign of intelligence?Originally Posted by cyrille
I see it as trying to include as many "notable" previous "leaders" as a shotgun approach. Trying to influence by association to the reviewers own "leaders" list and hence obtain their Phd.
The students work/"rigours of research"/topic selection is obviously sufficient to obtain her goal without the too numerous "reinforcements" from others.
But then I'm not the academic of my family, or obviously, this forum.
you made the conscious decision to go searching for her photo....you didn't just stumble across it.
you found it....and then decided to posted it.
why?
because you're fcuking creepy, that's why.
if she wanted her photo on this forum, she would have posted it herself.
Academic theorems, dissertations, and theses forms of hypothesis have long been watered down by over research content - where the notes and bibliography are scanned as more worthy and important than the scholarly body of work itself.
Largely politically prejudicial.
Something is surely amiss.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)