4 ms·
Scummier was the attack on his credibility: That's not what Fenster did. He went on the attack. "You never completed a master's degree, correct?" he asked Dif
by angersock 13y ago
Scummier was the attack on his credibility:
That's not what Fenster did. He went on the attack.
"You never completed a master's degree, correct?" he asked Diffie.
"That's correct," said Diffie.
"Other than the honorary degree, you don't have an earned doctorate or Ph.D. correct?"
"That is correct," said Diffie.
And even though he taught a few courses, "you never had a real professorship, correct?" asked Fenster.
"I never had a full-time academic job, no."
- ryansan 13y agoMake sure you read the discussions below on the validity of using ad hominem arguments to undermine witness credibility. Hard to watch/read when the witness in question is an idol of yours, but still a valid approach in the court room.
- surge 13y agoWhat's sad is, and maybe lost on the jury, is it actually increases his credibility, he's so accomplished in his field those with the earned degrees said "we view you as a peer or recognize you as a pioneer of our field, just take the degree". He is so smart or dedicated he reached that status without going to a class. Usually that means you've gone above and beyond what a traditional student has accomplished.
- SkyMarshal 13y agoMaybe a missed opportunity, but using Bill Gates as a counter-example of the necessity of formal education in CS could have neutralized that line of attack.
- cynwoody 13y agoAnd Steve Jobs. The two dominant companies in personal computing, both founded by drop-outs!
- tomrod 13y agoJust out of curiosity, how much trouble would he be in if he'd answered: "I never had a full-time academic job, no, but have consulted with a number of PhD students as a knowledge resource in cryptography." Is overanswering a bad thing in a court setting? It seems like lawyers always fish for information they can slant; full disclosure on a topic would seem to correct that failing?