Accuser on Union Institute Locked Thread

http://www.per-ankh.org/index.html

http://www.kemetonline.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/12684/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

http://www.ifafoundation.org/library-santarialucimi.html

(you'll need to scroll down on this last one)

One notices that Ms Levant is a (the?) wehemu, and that she runs her own seminary.

It's all a bit levantine, if you ask me.

 

Ad Hominem

Well

Adhominem attacks are rather poor way to make a point.

Especially when information provided is the truth ;-)

I am always impressed by those who make their arguments by attacking persons. Education should teach you to address the issues raised.

I guess your point is that a Priest of African Traditionl Religion is clearly not to be taken seriously and any argument they make flse regardless of their degrees, the content of the argument etc.

Interesting point you have there and have starting a thread around Uncle

 

Ad hominem? What part of what he wrote is ad hominem? Something is only ad hominem if there is a non-ad-hominem alternative. But everything Janko cites simply reveals the self-imposed importance with which you have surrounded yourself, personally, wehemu. By definition, such can no longer be ad hominem but, rather, mere statements of fact.

A word to the wise, wehemu: You have no friends here. Just look at the thread that got initially removed and then, upon its return, locked, because your allegations were so over the top that even people around here who normally don't agree assailed you in concert.

Notice, also, that you're sandwiched between DesElms and Janko. Trust me, you don't want the likes of us closing ranks in a battle of wits, such as it would be, with the likes of you.

Go home. Lick your wounds while they're still just scratches.

(Got yer back, janko.)

 

I am so impressed with your persuasive and intelligent argument.

 

I thought you'd see the light.

 

Isn't that a song...

"I've seen the Lighhhht"....

Seriously there... I think you are attacking with a lack of information and a false premise. You would not believe what is happening at Union Institute at the moment on many many levels.

It seems a bunch of folks here assumed I was attempting to attack an individual and replay some old flame war you have had here.

Far from it. I have been dealing directly with Union Institute, The Ohio Board of Regents, and calling nd speaking with individual Union Trustees and the USED around this issue.

If you believ eme to be lying I would simply ask you to make ONE phone call.

Call the Ohio Board of Regents and inquire as to whether Union Institute has EVER been authorized to grant PhD's in various fields.

They will tell you that Union institute has only EVER been approved to grant a single interdisciplinary PhD and that doe snot include a PhD in Higher Education etc

(Frankly I do not believe the OBR .but that is another matter..as long as UIU administration insist that is all they HAVE ever granted one can hardly make the fight or argument that the degrees are or have been legitimate.)

One call..and then see if you have the same opinion ;-)

 

Shouldn't everything you just wrote be over in this thread rather than here, wehemu? I mean, in how many different places do you believe you should be permitted to make the same points?

This thread -- the one you're reading now -- is about who you are, not what you're saying about Union.

Who knows... maybe janko should have identified you over in the only valid thread that's addressing your concerns -- the one over in the Off-Topic area entitled, "Thread on Union Disappeared?" -- rather than starting this new thread. But, nevertheless, start it he did. But its subject is you and your credibility, not Union. You and Union already have a thread.

Since who you are and what you're about is pretty well covered in the links in the thread-starting post here; and since the sites linked to therein are yours, is there really anything you can say here, in this thread, that can somehow improve upon that in any meaningful way? I don't think so. In your own words, herein: "I am so impressed with your persuasive and intelligent argument." And with that, I thought we were done. But no, you just couldn't resist letting the fat from this goose ooze all over everything a little bit more.

So, listen wehemu, whatsay you take your Union points back to the only logical thread around here where that's being discussed so people don't have to chase you and them around here like a game of whack-a-mole. Okay?

Please, everyone, don't respond to her Union points here. I'm not saying don't respond at all. I'm saying just copy and paste 'em into the proper thread and respond to 'em there, not here. Please. This woman has somehow managed to spread her point out across what... is it three threads, now, or four? I've lost count. And therein lies the point.

Let's get this oil spill contained, shall we?

 

Perhaps the poster needs a lesson on what an ad hominem argument is

Although that would ruin all his fun

How uncharitable that would be.


Have a good night and enjoy roasting in your own flames. I feel bad for those whose sources of pleasure are so limited.

Blessings

Rev Renee Levant

 

"Ad hominem" is from the Latin, meaning "to the man" (or by some translations, "against the man"). In a debate or discussion -- particularly one of a theological nature (but it applies appropriately to other types of debates or arguments, as well) -- it is the act of attacking the person or opponent rather than debating the issues. It is appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than to the intellect; to emotion rather than reason. It is the claim that something must be false because the person who said it is not credible. Get it?

Since your first post, "fun" hasn't really been a part of the mix, has it?

Since your first post, "charity" hasn't really been a part of the mix, has it?

That you see as a "flame" an admonition to stay on topic in this thread, and to keep the contents of this thread from leaking over here, may be part of why you're so well loved in this forum.

You know nothing of all the places, things and people from which I derive pleasure. And I feel worse for those who insist on getting the last word for its own sake.

Hypocrite.

And you use the term loosely.

 

I cannot help but notice that the biographies of the two instigators (both of whom, IMO, are whack jobs) in the Union threads write in their respective biographies, which appear at this site:

Perhaps this is not so significant an issue, since Sedgwick is doing her doctorate in Religious Studies and Anthropology of Religion, as opposed to "Interdisciplinary Studies with a Concentration in . . ."

But what makes me more curious is the wording in the senior whack job's (Renee's) bio: "Rev Renee Levanthas completed her doctoral work in Philosophy of Religion and African thought and has successfully defended her dissertation..."

Most people would say that they "earned a Ph.D. from," not that they "completed their doctoral work." Indeed, with a doctorate, most people - even clergy - would be referred to as Doctor, not Rev.

Perhaps Renee will enlighten us: Does she, in fact, hold a Ph.D. degree earned from Penn State, or did she never complete it?

In the meantime, all I see are two newbies to this board that, in the other current Union thread, are engaged in a discussion primarily amongst themselves. (I believe that psychologists refer to that as "mutual masturbation. )

Two final notes: First, I'm with Tony Maranto. We're talking about semantics here. A "Ph.D. with a Concentration in..." is more than acceptable in any field. Second, I've always liked Bruce, but I don't think I'd want to fly in a plane with him at the controls - it would be leaning way too far toward the right wing, which is inappropriate in this type of forum. This is an instance where censorship was uncalled for - "Rev. Renee" could have been exposed as a space cadet on her own.
__________________

("Dr. Levicoff," the alleged Rev. Renee might ask, "are you ridiculing me because I practice traditional African religion?" "No," Steve replies, "I'm ridiculing you because you're weird, period.")

 

"Rev Renee" PM'd me, asking if I knew why she was banned after sending me a PM on the Union question. My response to that, and to the Union issue, is copied below. I agree with Steve that Union used to award degrees in the specific fields (IIRC, that's how his transcript reads), and that it doesn't matter. See below:


I thought the Union thread regarding the changes in degree titles was an interesting one, except for the "lies" statement, which I felt was inflammatory. I certainly supported its continuation, which is why I protested its disappearance. As for your banning, I have no idea about that--I don't run the board and nothing was said to me.

Union did indeed award degrees in the actual fields. This was my understanding when I entered in 1986. When I returned in 2002, the setup was as it is now, a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies with a concentration and a specialization. My concentration is in Higher Education and my specialization is in Nontraditional Higher Education.

I asked about this at a colloquium. A long-time faculty member (whom I'd known for more than a decade) said the same thing you've said Union has maintained: that the school has always awarded its degrees in Interdisciplinary Studies. But this isn't true. I think what happened is that the Ohio Board of Regents had a change of heart regarding Union and its ability to deliver effective doctoral programs in almost any area (supported not by a core faculty in each area, but individual doctoral committees made up of subject matter experts). They then pressed Union with this notion, saying Union never had the right to issues those degrees in their respective areas. Union went along and used a little revisionist history, saying they were awarding Interdisciplinary Studies degrees all along. But my learning agreement never stated that, and that was never my understanding. And no documention from Union during that period did, either.

Bottom line: the OBR pressured Union into this change by stating Union never had the authority to award degrees in those areas, limiting them to concentrations and specializations (which, by the way, are for practical purposes the same thing). Union has to go along, so it says it always complied. I don't think Union is lying straight-out. I think the OBR is embarassed because it doesn't like what Union has done all these years, yet it didn't do anything about it. So Union is helping the OBR save a little face while complying with its wishes. But here's the effect:

I entered Union pursuing a Ph.D. in Higher Ed. with a specialization in Nontraditional Higher Ed.

I left with a Ph.D. with a concentration in Higher Ed. and a specialization in Nontraditional Higher Ed.

No big deal.

 

Whether it matter or not varies by what you what to Do with the degree and also what state you are to be employed

I gave an example of the difference for clinical psychology. And that is the difference between employment and unemployment

I have heard in some states higher education credentials also matter in a similiar fashion.

In humanities, it may not make a difference to teach as an adjunct somewhere or at a community college and even some small colleges.

However, to teach at the graduate level and at a serious college it makes all the difference in the world.

The issue there is whether or not you have the doctorate in your field. If not you are not qualified to teach graduate students in your field.

Also, Appleson gave me an example of someone who was being employed as a expert witness. The courts called the NCA to confirm his credential. When the credential was not confirmed

 

Hi Rich,

As far as the "lies" statement. I am afraid Union Institute IS lying if we take what you wrote seriously.

A really central issue both ethically and legally is that a college must disclose the degree and the programs offered accurately.

If the administration has known was only licensed to give a single degree in Interdisciplinary studies but instead continued to send letters to students sayingthings like "congratulations on your certification an important step on the way to achieving your PhD in Religious Studies" than they are engaged in an act that meets the legal definitions of fraud.

And if in addition to representing this to students they did this to the USED (Each year schools receiving funding must state what degrees have been offered and earned) then the matter becomes even more serious legally and potential penalties severe.)


Rev Renee

 

And now, I cannot help but notice that since I posted the above, "Rev. Renee" has contributed two more posts to this thread, yet has not answered the question I posited (based on the abstract wording, quoted in my original, of her claim regarding Penn State). (Not to mention the fact that, in an initial check, I was not able to find a Renee Levant referenced in the UMI Database.)

So how about it, Renee?

 

C'mon, Steve, show some respect. I mean, I posted some links and it got called an ad hominem attack. On off-topic, the wehemu is calling Bruce immature. Ge'ez, Steve, what with you being a PhD and me being a cleric, maybe we could start our own siminerry, too.

Look, Dorothy, we're not in Wisconsin any more!
No, of course not, Toto, we're just milling about.

The poor thing has no idea what an ad hominem attack from me would actually be like. Mind, I had no cause to make one, nor, being such an ole sweetie, would I have done. If posting a link to somebody's own material constitutes an ad hominem attack, then methinks the lady doth protest too much.

But what do I know?

Gregg, Steve, multumesc foarte mult.

 

But what do I know?>>


To quote a great Palestinian Jew:

It is YOU who ask this not I

 

Who's the Jew and what's the reference?

 

JESUS CHRIST !

I wont answer that

 

What's the reference, please.

 

Still no reference on that quote. Why not?