Dr Phil

[philip_hughes]

Not yet.... But close.

Just got my corrections.

One reviewer picked it apart, still minor corrections.
One reviewer loved it, minor corrections
One reviewer loved it, no corrections.

I have to go to a conference, therefore deal with it later, but this thing will take much less effort to fix than I expected.

I am a little happy.

[pjknibbs]

Ooh, doctor! Can you tell me what I have to do about this pain in my lower back?

(Seriously, congratulations!).

[mrbadger]

You ain't a proper Doctor till you've made your first Resteraunt table booking using your new title.

Seriously, it's so much fun Almost makes up for the agony that is getting the never to be sufficiently damned literature review right.

Almost.....

[Alan Phipps]

Just be very careful never to say something like 'Hello, I'm Doctor Phil and I'm fascinated by interesting soil samples.' Some people might feel the urge to provide you with what they thought you meant ..

Congrats!

[jlehtone]

One reviewer picked it apart, still minor corrections.
One reviewer loved it, minor corrections
One reviewer loved it, no corrections.

The first one sounds diligent. The other two ... insufficient constructive critisism. If you don't point out any issues in the work, then either the work is flawless or you did not read it properly.

[mrbadger]

One of my reviewers in my Viva said half my thesis stood without defence and I got quite annoyed at him, because to be honest that was a load of bull.

I knew it was good enough, but the entire reason I was there was to defend it. I'd come 300 miles to defend it in fact, so that answer did not please me one bit. I think it was rather obvious this was the case.

So they may have loved it, I'm glad they did, but I do hope they had questions for you.

But the thing about the table booking I said first is still awesome....

[Usenko]

You have NO IDEA how proud I am of my little brother!

[philip_hughes]

One reviewer picked it apart, still minor corrections.
One reviewer loved it, minor corrections
One reviewer loved it, no corrections.

The first one sounds diligent. The other two ... insufficient constructive critisism. If you don't point out any issues in the work, then either the work is flawless or you did not read it properly.

The first one is a legend in the field, the next is a leading soil taxonomist.

Even though the first one absolutely shredded it, he started by saying that the work contained several landmark pieces, that soil research would be defined by this document for the next few decades.

[mrbadger]

Even though the first one absolutely shredded it, he started by saying that the work contained several landmark pieces, that soil research would be defined by this document for the next few decades.

then it's good that he shredded it, shows he was interested by it enough to bother.

[philip_hughes]

Even though the first one absolutely shredded it, he started by saying that the work contained several landmark pieces, that soil research would be defined by this document for the next few decades.

then it's good that he shredded it, shows he was interested by it enough to bother.

True, I'm just happy that is good enough for a phd.

[Cpt.Jericho]

Doctor Who?

[Retiredman]

Doctor Who?

Not who


There's a Dr. Phil already on TV.. (in the US)

So where your from and if soil is your bag.. then you can be"

Dr. Phil-Down-Under-Dirt.
or
Dr. Pdud

[philip_hughes]

I can either be a nutbag Texan psychiatrist or a dead Australian cricketer. Take your pick.

Try googling "philip hughes".

It corrects your spelling to two l's- as if I don't know how to spell my own name.... and so much for big data knowing everything about you.