This could be true and the poster that posted it should normally just be completely ignored anyway. However, the point is mainly that the information was posted and purposely portrayed to make it into something that it was not.
Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? Thanks. Also, I shouldn't be completely ignored as I have literally tens (....and tens) of fans on here.
Just on a side note, I also find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe that someone "supposedly" of that level of education can't tell the difference between net income and gross income and also can't compose a mature and intelligent response to save their lives. Just my opinion though...
Yushin made the same mistake. Given his training, he is certainly more educated than I. Given the consistently level-headed nature of Yushin's posts, I'm seriously doubting that he is secretly plotting at home to present false data. Get over it, chief, it was a mistake, I admitted it, move on.
It's not really possible to copy a table of numbers and "accidentally" skip the bolded header literally right above it especially when they also show the gross numbers in another table right below it. Then on top of that to claim in writing that it is something that it clearly said it was not is just a bit too much. Since these posts are archived for future pre-optometry people to see, I felt compelled to call it out for what it was.
What on Earth are you rambling about? Tables, paragraphs, numbers? ...."skipped the bold headers?" I thought we already established the fact that I mistakenly assumed that net income was pretax. You seem awfully eager to expose some sort of plot that is not there to expose. Many people define net income as pretax, although I admit (again) that it is incorrect to do so by accounting standards. At any rate, the point was to illustrate the fact that the AOA number quoted by another poster is artificially high. As a matter of fact, the Review of Optometry numbers also seem artificially high, pre-tax, post-tax, it doesn't matter. They do not represent realistic income for what grads entering the profession can expect to bring in. You're telling me I'm trying to deceive people? How about when a prospective OD applicant looks at the AOA survey data and sees 175K as the average annual income for ODs in 2007? Do you think that might be a little misguided? Damn, I forgot, you're not in the eye care field so you probably can't answer that question.
And, just as a side note of my own, you need to work on your usage of quotations. When you're careless with them, you end up saying things you don't actually intend.
What you wrote was....
I also find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe that someone "supposedly" of that level of education can't tell the difference between...
What you probably meant to write was...
I also find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe that someone of that level of education "supposedly" can't tell the difference between...
See, when you use quotes around the word "supposedly," and you place it too early in the sentence as you did, it reads that you are doubting the fact that I have an OD, not that you doubt that someone with an OD could make that mistake, as you clearly intended. Don't worry, though, if you don't get it after the first or second read, just keep reading it until you grab on to the idea, it will make sense eventually. However, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe that someone with your education could make that mistake. Are you plotting to destroy the grammar and syntax of the readers of this forum? You know, this stuff will be archived so I just felt compelled to call it out for what it was.
I really appreciate the assumption of papal infallibility, though. Come to think of it, I do own a mitre, but it's of the carpentry variety and not the kind that might adorn the head of the great Pontiff.
Hey, does this mean that I won't be getting that bro-hug I mentioned in Tippytoe's thread?
😀
