hmm, I feel the most thing is are you motivated to do the research yourself? I don't just think low of someone's ability just because he made mistakes during a presentation. I really like someone who is passionate about the work and is willing to dig deeper into the work.so if yourself is really interested in the work, show them by taking to them initiatively about your ideas, some issues in the previous methods, etc.. to show that you really are into this.

The question of favoritism.. that's another question. better address the first issue first, and see how it goes in, say, a month of time.

@ the computer problem--what about just saying up front that you would like to request a new machine, or replacement machine, as the one you have is inadequate, due to a, b, and c, --give very specific examples ( it crashes when you open 4 windows, it takes 20 minutes to send an email, it crashes causing you to lose work, or whatever the case is), and ask what can be done to replace it. The straight forward approach may work more effectively than hoping someone will take up your hints...could you for instance email your sup/s asking if it is possible to address your concerns re: computer at the next meeting you have?

I suspect that you are reading everything worse that it is because of your viva experience. You DID pass your viva - try not to assume that every comunication since then is about your being at the bottom of the pile - that is probably more about how you feel than how others feel.

I never really thought about any meaning related to the order you are included in emails, except perhaps when you are a copy, rather than main recepient. Suggesting that you focus on your PhD and not a talk is perhaps NO reflection on thoughts about your performance on the viva, but a matter of prioritising what you do and where your supervisor thinks your time and effort are best spent. It is very easy to get sidetracked off your main research with conferences, talks, other projects, trying to publish, or whatever, all of which are worthwhile pursuits, but in some respects have to be secondary to making sure your research is the main focus. Perhaps your supervisor thinks that doing a joint talk is not particularly helpful for this stage of your development, without that being a negative.

I have a tendency to make my own plate a little too full, and sometimes have conversations with my supervisor, about whether it is worthwhile to pursue a conference submission or even just attend one without presenting--and this is not a reflection on my progress. Rather, I think its about sounding out priorities, and trying to identify the advantages gained by taking on something "on the side".

Is there ANY possibility of raising your concerns with your sup, and just say you are concerned about how your work is percieved after the viva, and could you and sup/s engage in a short, medium and long term prioritisation of your work, including talks, conferences, etc?

"BH - have you read 'the rise of the meritocracy' -quite an interesting book which I am using as part of my section on labour power"

Yes, I managed to track down a second hand copy and I love it. (Puts way too much faith in psychologists abilities to select though). I do see the dangers of consolidating the view that those who achieve do, whilst those that dont flounder, but at my fairly puny level I have to motivate people too (they are all quite ambitious, but require some coaxing).

RE: the computer. Have you tried going straight to a friendly IT person and asking for help? I'm asking cos when a new girl started here on a temporary contract I was asked to let her share my desk/computer. This was OK in the short term but that was now a year ago, and she's still sitting at my desk (bloody Facebook) half the day. So I asked IT very nicely if she could have her own place, and they actually agreed and sorted it.

As for the rest of it: are there many other PhD students around you? Has this happened to anyone else?

Generally, other PhD students are not treated all that well in our department unless they are fancy shcholarship holders or are towards the very end of the PhD and have some publications and have proved themselves in some way.