An Apology to Gus Sainz and Uncle Janko

Sometimes, sleeping dogs should be let to sleep, but sometimes they shouldn't. When someone acts a jackass (in this case the someone being myself), apologies (in this case from me) should be made.

Some time back, I lost my temper with Gus Sainz and Uncle Janko over an issue that, in hindsight, I should not have mentioned on public boards populated mostly by strangers.

Because the matter was close to my heart, I let it get the better of me, and I got really, really angry in an all too human way. I consider it my failing that I did so.

I am not one for asking for an erasure of the past. The past cannot be erased. I am one, however, for trying to learn from it and whenever possible, avoiding ugly repetitions of the past.

That said, I wish to apologize to Gus Sainz and Uncle Janko for my outburst here and otherwhere. It was ungentlemanly (and I admit, unknightly) of me to lose my composure in the manner I did. I should have stood back from what I perceived as a slight and refused to let it affect me the way it did, and addressed it in a firm but always polite manner.

There are ideological views that I hold dear, the separation of higher education and state, and the autonomy of institutions of higher learning being at least two of them. If, however, I am to criticize an oponent in a debate for something (such as being a zealot), I must first make sure that I myself am not prone to being a zealot, and I must not let my own bias (be they deeply personal matters or ideological ones) cloud my judgment in how I conduct myself in public human congress. If I cannot, I open myself up to ad hominem tu quoque, which is to say, even though tu quoque is technically a logical fallacy, one had better practice what one preaches if one is to maintain any credibility.

I believe in being polite and calm, even in the face of heated disagreement, but in this case, failed to apply that standard to my own public conduct.

I therefore humbly submit this apology to Mssrs. Sainz and Janko with the hope that they accept it in the sincerity in which it is offered.

I also apologize to members of this board (and otherwhere) who were subjected to the whole ugly ordeal. It was not fair to bring such personal matters to the front of what should be an impersonal ideological debate.

 

That shows a lot of character, Quinn, good for you!

 

Perhaps.

48 hours ago Mr Jackson was helping a Vietnamese shill defame me.

Just a few hours ago he was trying to smear Jake with guilt-by-association regarding vicious harassment Mr Jackson received some years ago.

Let's see what we see, not for a few minutes, but consistently.

If it lasts, fine. If not, not.

 

And let's not forget his comments about me over time -- both here and, as he put it, otherwhere.

Quinn, you've always been a curious one to me. I've visited your web site and have been impressed by so many things about you. Once, here, when I posted a poem about kindness, your appreciation was noticed and appreciated in return. You're obviously brilliant and a man of sensitivity and what would appear, at least, to be a kind heart.

Yet you post, in "otherwhere," as you put it, some of the most godawful things sometimes. I just don't get it.

I agree both with Bruce and Janko, in this case.

Let's see what happens.

 

Quinn:

While you and I have differed on our views regarding unaccredited schools, we've been civil. Thank you for that. As you know, any discussion thread can get out of hand; most of us have been guilty of one type of incivility or another, but those things don't typify us, nor this board. With that in mind, please let me ask you this question:

Why on earth do you participate in that other forum? I know that there are sympathetic views regarding unaccredited schools, but you have to admit the tenor of many of their posts are anything but polite. The unsolicited, personal attacks they engage in are the norm, not the exception. And many who are either tolerated or even exhalted are vocal supporters (or even perpetrators) of some really awful operations.

It is my opinion that joining them in their environment lends credibility to what can only be termed an incredibly bad setup. And if you took away all the posts that (1) were unsolicited personal attacks, (2) supporting degree mills (not unaccredited schools, but mills), and (3) discussion of DegreeInfo, you'd have very little left.

So, again, considering your own recognition of, and desire for, civil discourse, do you lend credence to a board that is demonstrably against it? Just wondering.

 

I guess this is what I wanted to ask, too... but I confess to not having the courage. Tip-o-the-hat to Rich for acknowledging the elephant in the room. And I agree with every syllable Rich wrote thereafter.

Anyone who takes a moment to research you, Quinn, cannot help but be impressed. Anyone who visits those other fora cannot help but be unimpressed... by their childish comments about coffee enemas and the like. What mature adult would embrace that theme -- or most any of the other ongoing themes there -- and be able to look other rational adults about whose opinions they care in the face again? It's so beneath you... I'm serious. When you put your mind to it, you can write -- and have written -- here, some of the most interesting and even amazing things. I love reading your stuff when you're on your game. Then you go over to one of the other fora and engage in and/or agree with some of the most unconscionable commentary I've ever seen. It's a mystery to me what's going on with you. Just a mystery.

If you put the kind of energy into posts here (where there are literally tens of hundreds or maybe even thousands of people reading each week) that you put into posts there (where there are literally tens of... well... tens of ones reading each.. I dunno... what... month?... and being thoroughly put-off by the childish, gutter sniping kind of commentary about what we write over here, in this forum), it's difficult to even fathom the kind of good you could do.

It's a curiosity, to be sure. How do you respond to what Rich asks here?

 

I like Quinn, Gus, Janko, and many of the other posters here. As others have stated discussions can and do get out of hand and it can be hard to handle. We are all human and falliable. I would hope that Quinn will continue to post as he sees fit.

 

DaveHayden

SURELY you are not suggesting that those of us who are LAWYERS are "human and fallible"?

Or even "human OR fallible"?

 

Gregg (and others):

The people who post "there" are just as human as the people who post "here." They do good, productive things, they give away their daughters in marriage, they take their sons out fishing, they put their pants on one leg at a time.

When they are pushed -- they push back. What one often witnesses on the alternative boards is the pushing back. Just as sometimes people "here" have more time on their hands than they seem to know what to do with, some "there" have too much time on their hands. What people do with their free time is up to them -- it's not something I have a terribly large sum of myself.

Why don't I post more here? Because I don't like responses to me to be peppered with phrases like "your fraudulent degrees" and "your fraudulent this and that." I have a right to not want to read posts directed at me with the words "fraudulent" and so on scattered throughout.

My productive years are running too short to subject myself to that. Rather than ask poeple to refrain from it (and I don't really expect them to refrain from it, so I won't even bother trying to ask), it's simply easier to not subject myself to it. It all gets me nowhere.

 

One of the things that we know from living in the modern world is that sometimes good people do bad things and sometimes bad people do good things. If a mafia leader gives money to charity is that good or bad? If a Minister silently condemns a criminal, is that good or bad? It's not beyond the reach of anyone here to understand that you can love your daughter, take your son fishing and dress yourself while at the same time being a despicable human. Quinn, you're too intelligent to actually believe what you've just written. It's just an easy answer and does not stand up to scrutiny.

I believe that when the whistle blows, the teams line up and when you look around you're either on one side or you're on the other. The people who post "there" are, in fact, just as human as anyone on this forum. However, being a member of this "human" club simply buys you a vote. How you cast that vote remains your decision. All I know is that sooner or later you'll have to choose.
Jack
(by the way, Quinn, I've spent enough time on that other forum to know that when you say, "gee, I'm really busy and might not be able to post again soon," it means nothing at all. You said that on the other forum and then went along posting, maybe even more than usual. Post or don't post, it doesn't matter. The issue remains)

 

Regardless of all that, I'm glad you're here.
Jack

 

I confess to being disappointed by your response, Quinn.

And, for the record, I have never attacked you on any level. Ever. I may have responded to something you wrote -- and, who knows, maybe even angrily -- but I've never talked about your "fraudulent" anything, or tried to paint you in that way.

Nor have I done so -- here or anywhere else -- to any of your co-conspirators in the other fora. That said, I have called them on the unconscionable postings some of them have made... beginning, some months ago, with posts which made light of the tragic head injury suffered by one of this forum's frequent past posters; and subsequent posts that wished him either no recovery, a life of drooling on himself and/or having to wear an adult diaper, or, worse, even death. That's when I finally came out against that kind of horrific behavior for the first time. Who wouldn't have.

Ever since then, curiously, I've been lumped-in with everyone else areound here whom they hate -- apparently, in my case, for having the temerity to call their behavior what it was -- and I have endured all manner of personal attacks in newsgroups and other fora. I keep being called an "RA or no way" member of the DI "group," when anyone who does a simple search of my posts around here -- from the outset -- can see that I am by no stretch of the imagination "RA or no way." I have many times talked about "unaccredited, but nevertheless credible and legitimate" institutions; and, in fact, I can think of three favorable posts I've made about such institutions around here just in the last day or so. But still I am attacked.

For some reason everyone "otherwhere," as you put it, seems to think that the whole "$40K hooker" theme gets under my skin. They don't realize, perhaps, that I wear my time of anti-prostitution activity like a badge of honor. Sure, it did include both trying to regulate adult establishments and shutting down outright whore houses... something which tends to rile the "but prostitution is a victimless crime" apologists. But my work also included helping get prostituted women off the streets, into shelters, off drugs, off unlawful detainer lists so they could get an apartment; and then, ultimately, helping them to get their kids back... the loss of which is usually the tragedy that tipped it in for most of them and plunged them into a life of crack use and street prostitution in the first place. I was even on the board of directors of a non-profit organization there that had group counseling sessions for the women, referred them to other non-profit groups and agencies for more specialized help, and even protected/sheltered them from pimps and others who tried to keep them enslaved.

Moreover, I worked tirelessly with pro-prositution groups to get police to arrest the johns, and not the women, whenever they had the chance -- which is as it should be, and I've never professed otherwise. But no one ever talks about that. They'd rather talk about... I dunno... coffee enemas, I guess.

The infamous "$40K hooker" article to which your cohorts keep referring one another in the mistaken belief that it gets to me, was written by the local Minneapolis periodical that would have been most hurt by the legislation we were working on back then because of the literally thousands and thousands of dollars worth of adult advertising revenue it would have cost them. The author of the piece, therefore, took great license with what I said during the interview, and put a slant on the story that actually made it fundamentally inaccurate.

But that didn't bother me then -- and it certainly doesn't bother me now -- so whenever I read those posts in other fora (usually because someone emails me to tell me about them thinking, wrongly, that I'll be bothered by it), all I do is grin and shake my head in disbelief at the time they're wasting and the damage to me and/or my reputation that they're not, in fact, doing.

It's pathetic, really. And your association with them, Quinn, makes me sad, given what I know of you and the high opinion I have of your mind, sensitivity, and your sense of empathy. But you're obviously selective about those to whom you extend it, for I, too, do good, productive things, gave away a daughter in marriage, took her out fishing, put my pants on one leg at a time, etc.

But, no matter. It's clear that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on any of this. I'm sorry -- truly sorry -- that you feel like you can't post here without being attacked and having people call either you or your degrees fraudulent. I don't happen to feel that way about you. In fact, I don't happen to feel that way about most of the people, as you call it, "otherwhere." I continue to be astonished by both the nature and frequency of the absolutely unprovoked attacks on me there.

But not bothered. Never bothered. It all just rolls off my back like water off a duck. Always has. I don't let what they write stop me from expressing my opinion; nor am I ever ashamed of doing so, in any case.

• "Be who you are and say what you feel because those
  who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
  
  -- Theodore Geisel (Dr. Suess)

I certainly don't hold exclusive rights to embrace that sensibility, Quinn. They, otherwhere, can write whatever hurtful, hateful things they want. I'm just always surprised when you do.

Oh, well. [sigh]

Yes. Indeed! I agree with that completely. And, truth be told, there are some "otherwhere" whom I often wish were still around here, too. Sadly, most of them would just end-up getting thrown out again... and certainly not merely because they don't agree with the so-called "party line" around here, anymore than that was the reason when they got thrown out in the first place. But I know they'll tell the story differently. They always do.

 

Nos

Perhaps I can edit it to, "We are all human and fallible here EXCEPT for Nosborne and Gregg"?

 

Quinn

You make several good points. As I mentioned I wish many of the posters there would post here. The ones that post with hate, venom, and the wish to cause others harm can stay there.

 

Now you're talkin'!

(Except, you might want to check with Nos to see if he's okay with being in such nefarious company as mine.)

 

It's not that simple. I, for one, have never pushed anyone there--I can't post there. You have to admit that their board is littered with threads that were started and continued just to insult other people--people who cannot answer back. That doesn't happen here. A thread like that would get closed in a hurry. Sure, sometimes people step over the line, but it's not the same as initiating thread after thread. You know that I know what I'm talking about--I'm one of "their" favorite targets.

Again, it's one thing to "push back." It is quite another to simply "push." There have been some angry, vile, and just plain wrong things said about me on that board. Those have nothing to do with "pushing back."

 

Gregg:

I'm sorry if my response was inadequate or disappointing. I believe that I've made my views on what happened regarding the horrible accident and the responses that followed quite clear in the past, and do not wish to revisit that sad time. It sill gives me goosebumps.

Jack:

I put that tagline as a result of having taken some seriously nasty heat over not replying to someone on another (non-DL) list due to being temporarily unable to follow all posts. I don't have my "email me if a new message is posted" feature turned on on the boards I visit, and likely miss posts and just don't want people to think they're being purposely avoided.

As for when the bell tolls, I can only pray I'm found to be on the right side of the fence. What side that is will be distributed after the bell tolls, I suspect.

I'm sure that being human buys more than just a vote, but what else it buys I'm not wise enough to know. I suspect it buys a chance at making real connections in a real world, populated by other real humans. But as I say, I'm not sure.

Janko:

I've said my sincere peace. Take it for what you feel it is, leave it for what you feel it is.

Dave:

The lines are drawn and the sabres have been rattled. I don't know if the lines can ever be erased, or the sabres put into ploughshears. Too much emotional and positional investment has been made on both sides, I suspect. Wishing it weren't so won't make it not so, any more than wishing I had more time to do what I want to do while I can still do it will buy me that time.

We get the time we get, when we get it, and if we blow it, it's blown. The issues (and the wounds) are deeper than some might pretend or wish otherwise, and perhaps go back too far.

It's a river that runs too deep for me to swim anymore.

 

Quinn

I appreciate your words and thoughts.

 

My dear Quinn:

Your very recent track record here is what it is. As to your apology, I will neither take it nor leave it, neither accept it nor reject it.

The way you comport yourself, both here and elsewhere, will either confirm what you said or make a mockery of it. What I will do is wait to see what you do.

I am on Balkan Standard Time. I can wait.

Janko Preotul

 

Quinn - I'm glad your posting here and I hope you continue to do so. If we were neighbors I suspect we'd be friends. However, this crap about "we won't know right from wrong until judgement day" is just that, crap. You can't claim that people have "done you wrong" and then turn around and say that you don't know right from wrong. Make a choice.
Jack