Imagine, presume, give or take... However you want to dress up your attempt to somehow prove I´m lying, you are wrong.

It was actually 4 years undergraduate, 4 years for a doctorate. Most (not all) people going into scientific PhD will have a masters. Given that the majority of EPSRC projects are funded for 3.5 years, very few people complete in 3 years as you have wrongly assumed. Even then there aren´t many places in the world you can get a doctorate that quickly, 3 years is a minimum. You really don´t show a good understanding of how it all works, why would you use your estimates and presumptions to conclude I´m lying?

Call me sack of shit or whatever you like, you are wrong.
(el perro grande, Sat 6 Mar 2010, 21:53, 1 reply)

keep going...
A doctorate is three years, standard. I know this for a fact, as I have a good deal of experience in higher education. Yes, you can spin it out - most do - and yes, you an compress it, if you really have to.

That all aside - by extending the time-frame, all you achieve in respect of your 'doctorate' is to move is from 'improbable', to 'impossible'. Unless, of course, you were planning this exchange years in advance, and the dates and time you've previously given are false. Which still means,one way or another, that you're telling fibs.

Either way, you're a liar, and a fraud. How is JMU these days, Poly-boy? Does it even resemble an actual university?
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 6 Mar 2010, 23:11, closed)

You know it for a fact? Then why is the majority of funding now offered for 3.5 or even 4 years these days? That is not three years standard is it? A very small minority finish in 3 years. Maybe that was the case when you were at uni, 3 years was the standard in the past. Of the 12 people who started their doctorate at the same time as me a grand total of one handed in their thesis on the three year mark. I also think you are forgetting that you then have to wait for a viva in order to fully complete a doctorate.

As for your reasoning based on the times of my stories, complete rubbish. The crappy money I mentioned was during my PhD, something you would have realised if you read the post I was replying to. Wrong assumptions, again. Unfortunately for you in this case repeating yourself over and over will not make what you say any more right.
(el perro grande, Sun 7 Mar 2010, 12:23, closed)