"DegreeInfo.com" now a dirty word at CollegeHints.com

Gus Sainz wrote:

> You neglected to point out that my messages were only in
> response to the repeated postings of the same inane drivel

On the contrary, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said "even if part of a tit-for-tat".

The "inane drivel" wasn't shilling for mills; it was a running joke pretending they couldn't read your posts because they had decided to tune you out. No need to respond to that.

 

I registered over at CH today.

Who knows who is right about the way a forum should operate? Maybe CH will be successful, and maybe not. I tend to think Bruce does a pretty good job here.

I know I have learned a lot here, and my thoughts on distance learning have evolved. I do see that people see education in different ways. Just because people have different views does not mean that they are evil unethical people. The whole war mentality to me seems petty, and I think people should just make their points and agree to just disagree sometimes.

 

You are not quoting me completely. Reread the entire sentence you have chosen to quote from my post. Concerning my posts on CollegeHints, you stated that entire message consisted only of ‘’Would you consider this an example of what our new moderator meant when he stated, 'Please ensure you take the time to treat all fellow members here at Collegehints with respect and courtesy?'", or as you chose to characterize them, “trivial variations thereon.” This is false. Most of my messages clearly mentioned the disruptive nature of the inane drivel I was responding to, and all were an appeal for civility and moderation. As such, nothing could be more inaccurate than characterizing the exchange as a “tit-for-tat.”

Did I need to respond? No. I chose to respond to point out how rude, obnoxious, infantile, and disruptive these posts were and the effect they were having on civil discussion. I was the one who pointed out the effect they were having on the signal-to-noise ratio. I was the one who appealed to the moderators to admonish the puerile posters to stop. Do you agree with and sanction such infantile behavior? Are you saying that posting drivel is OK, but complaining about it isn’t? Repeatedly responding with drivel isn’t quite the same thing as tuning out; those that responded with what you call “a running joke” simply couldn’t counter any of my arguments and resorted to such crap out of frustration. Moreover, for some reason, you are conveniently neglecting the fact that this wasn’t being done by a single individual nor were they doing this only to my posts.

 

Nonsense. If that message is signal rather than noise, it INCREASES the signal to noise ratio.

If the intended "signal" at Collegehints is that it is a place where every viewpoint is considered with respect and courtesy, then Gus's post only increases the signal-to-noise ratio.

I guess your point is that this is the exact opposite of what Collegehints truly stands for. The "signal" is that only those who advocate schools such as K-W (the largest sponsor of that forum) as being legitimate are accepted. The "noise" comes from those fools who actually believe that all viewpoints are tolerated. In that case, Gus' posts certainly decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.

 

plcscott has claimed he in the process of pursuing a legitimate degree. In this regard, he has my admiration and respect, especially since he does not need one to satisfy an employer or to impress anyone but himself. He and I have had our differences, but what he doesn’t know is that it is precisely stories like his that motivates me to post on this forum.

It is my belief, however, that if plcscott had landed at a forum such as CollegeHints instead of DegreeInfo many months ago, he would have been impressed that Kennedy-Western was a major advertiser and supporter of the forum, congratulated on his K-W degree, and lauded for his unconventional choice. As such, he would have been much less inclined to bite the bullet, make the sacrifices, and invest the time money and effort necessary to earn a legitimate degree. This is precisely why I view forums that suppress free speech, like CollegeHints, as dangerous.

 

I have only visited them one time. When I visited, there was a thread named something like “Degree info banned me”. The thread started, something like “If I want to have a piece of paper on my wall, what is the harm, some would call it a degree mill, but it is not hurting anybody”. It continued to how to buy, and now I see why the sites are different. I am sure there is great content there otherwise (maybe), but I think that the admins here do a great job in deleting those postings with the same content that I found on collegehints.com site.

Disclaimer - I only visited once!

 

Although I have not read all the post over there, I have not seen anything that should have caused any one to be banned. However, if you come into a bar and repeatedly complain about how the bar is run, and say that the owner is a crook then expect to be bounced.

If(?) I recall correctly what really did James and some others in here was criticizing the way degreeinfo was run, and making comments about how this site obtains its revenue.

Dr. Suhar says that he has been banned from degreeinfo, and as far as I know he has never violated the TOS here. So, I really do not see much of a difference. The moderators here have admitted to giving certain individuals such as Levicoff more leniency than others, and CH is doing the same with its chosen ones. As long as nobody is referring people to degree mills I do not see a problem with giving a different point of view.

 

I believe that Bruce has said that Dr. Suhar and Dr. Hayes were not banned from this forum. He considered it but didn't.

 

This is becoming the stuff of Urban Legends.

Richard Suhar is not banned from this forum. I just checked, and he last visited here on 2/2/04. If he's having problems logging in or posting, someone tell him to e-mail me at [email protected]

Next thing you know, DegreeInfo.com will have abducted him and stolen one of his kidneys.

 

I was the guy who started the failure to recognize a couple of spammers posts. These people showed up out of the blue and posted a dozen or two criticisms of everything and everybody. They tried to cure all the perceived ills in one day.

I was most certainly acting like an ass but the situation had pretty much degenerated into a melee by then.

Back many years ago when I learned radio procedure, you ignored jamming and tried to work around it. By admitting you were being jammed, you ecouraged it. Come to think of it, the advice really never stopped it.

 

This simply isn’t true (as are most statements employing the terms, always, never, everything, and everbody). And even if it were, what’s your point? Were you incapable of refuting the arguments or engaging in a civil debate?

What do you mean by "these people?' Do you mean Rich and I? If so, if anyone on that forum was aware of our viewpoints and whatever modest expertise we had to offer, Dennis, it would be you. Did you really feel so threatened as to have to resort to the tactics you employed? Also, I’ve been called many things, but spammer? That’s a new one.

Once again, not true. The situation only degenerated when you and your cohorts (yes, it was a concerted effort, and you know it) starting posting inane drivel. In fact, the main point of all my responses was that the discussion would degenerate. And if it was you who was “most certainly acting like an ass,” why was I banned? Never mind. I am well aware that that was the purpose of the entire exercise.

Moreover, what precipitated your behavior was one or two posts with true (albeit negative) information concerning California Coast University. Unable to counter the legitimate criticism of your alma mater, you chose instead to throw a tantrum. I can’t remember seeing more childish behavior on any forum.

As has been previously pointed out by Jeff, it was you and your ilk that were doing the jamming. I was simply calling (quite respectfully) for an end to it.

To me, the outcome of the situation was never in doubt; sooner, rather than later, Rich and I would be banned. However, I do not think that anyone on that forum can now credibly claim (as they have so frequently in the past) that DegreeInfo censors opposing viewpoints and permits personal attacks but that on CollegeHints all viewpoints are respected and allowed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Gus

I have to thank Peter French for encouragement. You remember Peter - don't you?

 

I am registered over there, but do not participate. It is quite enjoyable to watch the banter that goes back and forth. For a social historian, such as myself, it is much like listening to people in a debate or any other social concern. If asked to choose between here and collegehints, I shall choose to participate here. Thank you all for making me feel wonderful. One more thing all the participants here and there have much more distance learning knowledge than myself. I shall let those who know, speak.

 

Of course I do. He's the guy who insists he is banned from DegreeInfo, even though, a couple of weeks ago, I saw his name among the list of members perusing the forum. I didn’t realize how much he and you have in common until I read his childish threats on CollegeHints.

 

Gus Sainz writes:

> you stated that entire message consisted only of ‘’Would
> you consider this an example of what our new moderator
> meant when he stated, 'Please ensure you take the time to
> treat all fellow members here at Collegehints with respect and
> courtesy?'", or as you chose to characterize them, “trivial
> variations thereon.” This is false.

It's true: that is the entire text of what you posted a large number of times. I'll gladly add that you aforepasted different quotations from your adversaries to the instances; but most of those, too, were trivial variants of one another. Repeatedly making that off-the-board's-topic point-of-order added noise, not information, to the forum.

> nothing could be more inaccurate than characterizing the
> exchange as a “tit-for-tat.”

Delete the "in" from "inaccurate" and I'll agree with you.

> Do you agree with and sanction such infantile behavior?

Since they were at least trying to be funny, I'd put you slightly ahead on the "infantile" meter.

> Are you saying that posting drivel is OK, but complaining
> about it isn’t?

I'm saying that two wrongs don't make a right. The same complaint repeated many times is noise, and would get you thrown out of almost any moderated forum.

> those that responded with what you call “a running joke”
> simply couldn’t counter any of my arguments and resorted to
> such crap out of frustration.

That is what people who talk too much tend to say when other people stop responding to them.

 

Jeff Hampton writes:

>> Posting the same message repeatedly, regardless of
>> content, decreases the signal-to-noise ratio
>
> Nonsense. If that message is signal rather than noise, it
> INCREASES the signal to noise ratio.



Submit an already-published article to a scholarly journal. Try persuading them that to publish it again would be increased signal.

 

Rich Douglas wrote:

> Well, I just joined Gus and got banned. I think it was
> because I posted a defense of Gus. I also countered some
> Knightsbridge nonsense after a tip from Gus. Too funny.

Would anyone care to contrast Rich's serving as a conduit for the banned Gus in CollegeHints with Henrik's serving as a conduit for the banned Marianus in DegreeInfo?

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> neither of us violated the Terms and Conditions for Use of
> This Website posted on CollegeHints

and then:

> the specific naming of a school is still forbidden by the
> CollegeHints’ TOS. You know, the one that, apparently, only I
> have read.

Are you saying that neither you nor Rich ever named any specific school on CollegeHints?

 

What?! Attacks on unaccredited schools without proof of misdeed? It's completely unheard of in these hallowed halls of truth! ;-)

Dave

 

Mark, poking holes in your logic is far too easy and I will not bore the members of this forum by responding to your posts. I've known that, for some time (I’ve mentioned it before), it has been your zealous objective to attempt to prove me wrong (at anything). However, this obsession, because it is understandably frustrating, has not only clouded your judgment, but also relegated you to grasping at straws.

If you want to debate something, man, please rise to the occasion and present a coherent argument. C’mon, at least make it sporting, old chap. Although I am extremely reticent to publicly post anything that I am not absolutely certain of, I am not infallible; therefore, there is still a glimmer of hope. You must, however, do much better than you have done to date. Please understand; it is not my intention to dissuade you. I have faith that with a few more years of practice you might actually be able to match wits with me.

Till then, toodles.