Victimised

It seems as though the 'C' rep is not the only one undergoing ordeals and tribulations. The assistant 'C' rep has been hit too...and badly.

Initially, upon reading Jeremy's post, I was somewhat inclined to think that I was somewhat quite at fault. Perhaps, during the presentation, I might've gotten a bit carried away, and given my limited oratory skills, may have given off an unintended impression whatsoever. Thus, I decided to clarify matters on the 6H tagboard, and possibly apologise for any misunderstandings or unhappiness. Up to this point, at least, I thought I was mostly guility.

That is, until I went over to 6H's blog. Whilst admittedly eloquently and well-written, the supposed research paper appalled me greatly upon reading it. Disregarding any insignificant bits of biasness that may be lying around, what I found most disturbing was none other than the fact that false quotes were attributed to me! The ones that really, really annoyed me were the first and third "quotes" - obviously they were snobbish in nature, and nothing i said ever came close to that! The remaining three 'quotes' were also modified in some fashion, and taken OUT of context - I am sure that given the full account of what I actually said, along with the context in which I said that, and the attitude and tone that I said them with, they are absolutely harmless and benign. Admittedly, this issue is no laughing matter.
For example, taking the last supposed 'quote', "easy right?", the actual scenario was at the part of solving the differential equation of the separation of variables, and I said "...rather..er.. 'easily' solved by integration". Firstly, note the quotation marks around 'easily', which i had indicated somewhat with my tone. Next, note the usage of 'rather', which suggests relative to other integrals that ya may come across. Lastly, I am confident that given sufficient time to think, solving the integral would not be a problem for most of you. As evidence, this is a similar version of the equation there: (1/y)(dy/dx)=m.

Furthermore, my group's powerpoint did explain the physical significance of the equations, if attention had been paid. Of course, the counter-argument would be that the supposed vast amounts of equations turned the audience off, something that I cannot fully deny. Thus in this case, all I wish is to point out that we have indeed incorporated these parts into the powerpoint. And if further clarification/explanation is needed on the powerpoint, feel free to approach us for a copy of the powerpoint. Also, it must be noted that Schrodinger's Cat is simply a thought experiment to demonstrate the paradoxes within quantum mechanics, and does not contribute to the atomic model at all. This alone would make it more physics than even quantum chemistry.

Next, it was due to the lack of time that we had to rush through the powerpoint, hence resulting in possible lapses in understanding in the audience. Also, our presentation skills, admittedly, have much scope for improvement. For that, we apologise sincerely.

Finally, it appears that the rationale for putting the derivation in the powerpoint has been questioned by some. Well, my reply to that would be the component in the assessment criteria that the 'thinking process' of the scientist should be illustrated. As mentioned, the Schrodinger equation is simply a result of Schrodinger's sudden insight in manipulating already known equations and utilising mathematical techniques to create a new equation. As such, the derivation we are showing is in fact none other than his thinking process as he attempted to string the different equations together and solve them.

A sadly wronged asst. 'C' rep
~Fight~