4 added 268 characters in body
source | link
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."

I've just realised that the eminent professor was quite possibly referring to an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-the-strangest-man-by-graham-farmelo/article4289494/

Dirac's incident was the other way around. An audience member said that he didn't understand an equation given by Dirac in a lecture. Dirac gave no response, and when prompted to answer the question it was Dirac who said, "that was not a question, it was a comment".

Therefore, it's possible that heyour eminent professor intended to come across more funny and less controlling than he actually did. Still wouldn't excuse him trying to prevent you speaking, of course.

  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."

I've just realised that the eminent professor was quite possibly referring to an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-the-strangest-man-by-graham-farmelo/article4289494/

Therefore, it's possible that he intended to come across more funny and less controlling than he actually did. Still wouldn't excuse him trying to prevent you speaking, of course.

  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."

I've just realised that the eminent professor was quite possibly referring to an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-the-strangest-man-by-graham-farmelo/article4289494/

Dirac's incident was the other way around. An audience member said that he didn't understand an equation given by Dirac in a lecture. Dirac gave no response, and when prompted to answer the question it was Dirac who said, "that was not a question, it was a comment".

Therefore, it's possible that your eminent professor intended to come across more funny and less controlling than he actually did. Still wouldn't excuse him trying to prevent you speaking, of course.

3 added 365 characters in body
source | link
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."

I've just realised that the eminent professor was quite possibly referring to an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-the-strangest-man-by-graham-farmelo/article4289494/

Therefore, it's possible that he intended to come across more funny and less controlling than he actually did. Still wouldn't excuse him trying to prevent you speaking, of course.

  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."

I've just realised that the eminent professor was quite possibly referring to an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/review-the-strangest-man-by-graham-farmelo/article4289494/

Therefore, it's possible that he intended to come across more funny and less controlling than he actually did. Still wouldn't excuse him trying to prevent you speaking, of course.

2 added 85 characters in body
source | link
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • The chair asked for questions or comments.
  • Your title is about being prevented from answering a question, but the eminent Prof was correct in one thing. It was a statement, not a question.
  • The eminent Prof acted as if there's a right to make a comment without you responding to it. Since your response made the remark look obtuse (saying you should look at something you've already looked at), it seems likely that interrupting you was a ploy to avoid embarrassment.
  • It's really up to the chair whether you should respond to comments or not, but usually if the speaker thinks they have a useful response then they should make it. So typically the audience has no right to make comments without allowing a response.

So, any further response you make to the interruption should bear in mind that the Prof is quite likely only interrupting you to avoid looking silly:

  • You could treat it as a heckle. If you have a useful remark on the applicability (or otherwise) of X, then ignore the interruption and continue making it. An audience member raised X, you're talking about X: that's what the questions and comments part of your talk is supposed to be for. Remember it's not the eminent Prof that decides who's allowed to speak, it's the chair. So you can speak unless the chair interrupts.
  • If you're just defending yourself against an accusation of ignoring X when you didn't, then state that X was considered and move on to the next question/comment.
  • If you want to put down the eminent Prof (perhaps because you're at the end of your academic career anyway), then you could try some cutting remark before continuing: "This isn't an answer, it's a response to your comment", "Yes, but your comment is so wrong it risks misleading listeners", "Your mother", etc.
  • You could make the point in a much more friendly way, that you're determined to speak about X: "I agree with you, X is relevant and interesting because..." or "I thought the same thing, but it turns out X isn't applicable because..."
1
source | link