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

I have great fun sometimes acting very childish. I didn't bother looking at CollegeHints but if your interested I bet I could Google up some very childish behavior on my part that I'm sure would put Dennis's behavior to shame (in a reverse kind of way).

 

I bet you can’t. Here’s why: If your examples have even one iota of wit or humor (both of which requires some degree of maturity), you lose the bet.

 

What about Peter French?

Can someone clue me in on what happened with Peter French? I recall he was a huge Dr. Dr. Dr., etc. Hoyer basher, and was apparently threatened by Russian thugs to recant his preachings against Hoyer's operations. That doesn't sound necessarily bad to me, but apparently he has fallen enormously out of favor with the inner circle of this discussion board.

What happened there anyway??

 

This is so wrong. First, the CollegeHints denizens thrashed us, then they threatened to ignore us. I actually encouraged that tactic, but they reversed themselves and resumed their silly attacks. When that didn't work, out we went.

Dennis, you were an active participant in the repititious post game. Your behavior was reprehensible, and unbecoming.

 

Wrong, because I wasn't there specifically to argue. What I was doing was countering every wrong and misleading statement made. I would have continued that no matter what was said to me directly. If they would have just ignored me like the promised/threatened, I'd have been fine. You don't really think I want to debate James, Dennis, Henrik, Marianus, Neil and that lot, do you? Them ignoring me would have been the best thing for me!

 

But submit an already published article to one of the schools favored by Collegehints and they will give you a Ph.D.

Judging from your statements, Mark, you seem to think such actions are signal. I think they are noise.

 

Do you mean to say it was outside your expectations of my behavior? Doubt it, remember that I am a fraud.

Besides I was only replying to individuals posts by the spammers.

 

Jeff Hampton writes:

> But submit an already published article to one of the schools
> favored by Collegehints and they will give you a Ph.D.

Indubitably, bad schools and fake schools are advertised at CollegeHints, and we should broadcast the truth about them.

> Judging from your statements, Mark, you seem to think such
> actions are signal. I think they are noise.

Judging from your statement, you seem to think that, because we're the good guys and they're the bad guys, everything we do is good and everything they do is bad. Fact is, sometimes we good guys act in ways that do us a disservice. I'm sure you know the proverb, "Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference." A lot rides on what we say and how we say it. Countering lies with facts will help us. But if there's going to be repetitive blather not even about schools, let it be on their side, not ours.

 

I read Gus' and Rich's posts on CollegeHints with great interest. I am also surprised to see the manner in which they characterize their treatment. It appeared their intent was to disrupt by discrediting other opinions and members rather than just stating their own. They seemed to come in with pretty hefty attitudes. Both pleaded immunity under TOS rules (the "I didn't insult you, just what you stand for and your choices" approach, kinda like here) however it came off as superficially clever. It was obvious what their intentions were, especially when they posted debriefings on this site. I estimate they posted well over 150 times there before they were stopped. Let's face it, their argumentative style is not conducive to discussion. Their brand of truth can be opressive and obsessive to many. And since CollegeHints had been a peaceful site, it shouldn't be surprising that these folks were given their hat and shown the door.

From what I can see, CH is generally open to opinions regarding all forms of legitimate education, and promotes regional accreditation as foremost bona fides. There does seem to be a good deal of interest in DETC schools. Some discussion about "dubious" schools. Some arguments are flawed but no one is perfect and there is room for lots of opinion, no cause for insults, implied or otherwise. Most if not all posting members I've read are intolerant of degree mills. The site is far from the "degree mill factory" Mr. Douglas presents. It's certainly no threat to the wide readership and participation at this site; just struggling to figure out distance education options for the common man.

 

I'm sure Mr. Kirkland would not consider the above post "argumentative," but I do.

Broad generalizations about posters isn't helpful, nor accurate, but Mr. Kirkland makes them anyway.

There is only a handful of active posters there, most of whom do quite a bit of advocating the legitimacy of a couple of schools--well, one, mostly.

Gus and I experienced quite a bit of incivility. Read the tenor of our posts, though, especially in our first responses--the bitterness you describe occurs after we're attacked repeatedly. In fact, both of us were banned right after making quite civil posts--but those that ran counter to the board operator's business objectives. Being bland doesn't stop you from being banned.

The TOS was mentioned because of the obvious hypocrisy and double-standard manner displayed by the board's owner.

Mr. Kirkland makes broad statements about posters. Okay, I'd like to enjoy the same privilege. At CollegeHints, there are three types of posters. First, there are the diploma mill advocates--those that either run them or take their degrees from them. These are the most active. But because they set the bar so low, they encourage a second group of posters: those attending (or having graduated from)--unaccredited schools. That group is not just tolerated, but actively supported. The third group is a set of posters that have been banned, will be banned, or who will go away quietly. They run counter to the board owner's objectives--and if they do it long enough, they get the boot.

I believe Mr. Kirkland falls into the second group above. Because of the source of the DBA he lists after his name, he can't say with conviction some of the things that will get you banned. Interesting--and convenient--handicap.

Take a look at the posters with whom Gus and I had conflicts. Can you possibly support what Neil Hayes, Dennis Ruhl, and James Crabb have to say? Did you look at all at their behavior, both there and here? Have you looked at all at their posts on a.e.d.? When Gus and I used to argue about MIGS, we did so with the facts. No personal attacks, just a lot of back-and-forth. We ended up on the same side on that issue, in large part because of that back-and-forth. But when posters get personal, what do you expect in return?

Finally, as to purpose. Mr. Kirkland could not possibly know why I posted over there. That tries says a lot, though.

 

I know. Because your usual targets tired of abuse at degreeinfo and went elsewhere, ergo you had to go elsewhere to abuse them.

 

CH may do fine, but as of now I am not sure I will post there much. I have had some post and threads removed with no explanation, and those post or threads contained nothing negative or even argumentative. I am not much into wasting my time typing something only to have it removed for no reason. I posted a question on the off topic there about vanishing threads and post, and it was removed also with no explanation. I certainly do not get it.

 

So, your logic here is that because one earns a MBA and DBA from California Coast University, he can't be objective about various quality assurance systems? IMO, that doesn't make sense. Let me explain: First, CCU is a state certified and approved university which meets or exceeds CA Education Code and has been granted the right to award advanced degrees under CA law for the past 30 years (whether you like it or not). Second, you would be discounting the complete dossier which includes three RA undergraduate and graduate degrees, board certification, and professional certification from Stanford and a good deal of experience with responsibility. Third, the reverse argument to your position is that a graduate from the RA system could not objectively discuss the quality of that system which, if true, provides the additional benefit of nullifying yourself.

 

While posting on CollegeHints, I posted no “debriefings” on this site, and you still (after me clearly publicly stating what they were) want to characterize my intentions as something other than what they were just to suit your purposes. Forget the TOS, there are no guiding rules on CollegeHints, except those that Glen believes will make him the most money. He has stated this clearly and unequivocally; therefore, no one has the right to later claim to have be an unwilling accomplice in the execution of his business plan that calls for promoting and accepting money from degree mills. He has publicly stated that he is not concerned with the ethics of this. How about you?

I don’t know about Rich, but I posted a total of 27 messages (many of them stating that inane drivel was not conducive to civil discussion and calling for moderation) before I was banned. The owner himself declared open season on me by reponding to my first post (sharing my opinions on moderation) with a vitriolic personal attack. His assaultive comments in no way related to, or referenced anything I stated in, my post; instead, they all seemed to simply have been random observations cut-and-pasted from private emails he received objecting to my posting on that forum. More than likely, these emails came from people like James, Neil, and Dr. Marianus (who blamed me for being banned from DegreeInfo, and tore into to me the moment I posted on CollegeHints) who had been frustrated in the past by their inability to credibly refute any of my arguments here, on DegreeInfo.

No need to characterize it as our “brand.” Truth is truth, and I agree with you (and publicly stated so on that forum (one of the many statements for which I was ridiculed) that the truth can be highly inconvenient to many people. Nice to see you now agree with me.

Peaceful site? How do you explain the fact that (long before I ever posted a single message) the bickering and arguments were so degenerate as to compel the owner to shut down the entire forum for many weeks? Those attempting to rewrite history have seemingly (and very conveniently) forgotten this fact.

Oh, please. No one, but absolutely no one, can credibly say this any longer.

If the ownership and membership were intolerant of degree mills, they would not own them or proudly display their credentials from them. Moreover, degree mill owners would not have been unbanned (after having been banned for abusive behavior) and welcomed back (or better said, triumphantly welcomed themselves back) “with open arms” (isn’t that phrase more characteristic of a host rather than a guest?). If that site weren’t tolerant of degree mills, those claiming they had just earned another degree mill credential would not be exuberantly lauded and congratulated. If that site weren’t tolerant of degree mills, the egregious behavior of those affiliated with degree mills would not be tolerated and sanctioned. If the membership weren’t tolerant of degree mills, they would not contribute to a site that has now been exposed as being supported and financed by degree mill revenue.

I agree; that site is no threat to the readership if this forum, as they are generally well informed. That site is, however, very dangerous to the common (uninformed) man (or woman).

 

Question of the day

Did Rich invent Gus so he could have a friend??

Has it never occurred to Rich/Gus that while he thinks the words fraud, shill, mill etc. are being descriptive others perceive them as a personal attack???? And I bet he wonders why there is all that hostility.

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> I don’t know about Rich, but I posted a total of 27 messages
> (many of them stating that inane drivel was not conducive to
> civil discussion and calling for moderation) before I was
> banned.

This is false. There are 27 messages by Gus on CollegeHints now. This does not include the numerous messages posted by Gus and deleted by the moderator (including the trivial variants I already mentioned).

 

Kirkland wrote:

> Let me explain: First, CCU is a state certified and approved
> university which meets or exceeds CA Education Code and has
> been granted the right to award advanced degrees under CA
> law for the past 30 years (whether you like it or not).

Kirkland, I read the context of the above statement carefully, but it is not at all apparent to me what it's supposed to "explain".

I hear that California Coast University is now a pretty good school. But there are dreadful state-approved schools in the United States about which statements parallel to yours above could be made. You could argue that the California code is more stringent than some other states' and maybe "stringent enough". But I haven't seen you actually argue that. The state of Oregon (which accepts only a few California SA degrees) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (which requires RA degrees) are among those who clearly think it's not stringent enough.

I asked you, "And it doesn't matter how lax the laws are that they're 'legal' under?" You replied, "And yes it matters."
(http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11673) Why do you now make the above statement, which seems to imply that it doesn't matter?

 

I don't understand. If the other site is full of educational idiots, why are you all arguing about it here with each other? All of you have so much to offer those of us wanting to learn about education, why are you tearing each other apart over the other site on this forum?

 

Re: Question of the day

But I don't wonder why there is hostility or where it is emanating from, Dennis. To me, and I certain many others, the answers are obvious. Moreover, the individuals whose duplicitous behavior and affiliations I disclose are not the whole problem. They may not like being publicly exposed, but the frauds, degree mills, and shills, know exactly who and what they are. For the most part, they take the matter in stride (ever notice Dr. Marianas never denies being a shill?) figuring, I guess, that it just comes with the territory. Mind you, I do not deny that being exposed has to be upsetting to a shill, as it diminishes his or her effectiveness greatly.

No, Dennis, a much bigger threat to civil discussion, in my opinion, is people like you, who relish playing the role of agent provocateur. You contribute nothing to the discussion of distance learning, and make it a hobby of pitting one group against another. Then after the fireworks have died down, you try once again to rekindle the flames by ascribing blame for the brouhaha first to one party, then the other. Why is there so much hostility? Because agitators like you get a real kick out of fomenting it.

Please quote me calling an entity a degree mill, or an individual a shill or fraud, where, in your opinion, it was either untrue or undeserved. As I usually provide a clear justification for my claims, please provide evidence that the terms were employed incorrectly or undeservedly.

It is interesting that I have, among my detractors, a reputation for calling people liars, frauds, stupid, ignorant, etc. The last time the accusation was leveled, I did an extensive search of the archives of this forum for any post of mine that employed such terms, and proved that the accusations were false. The perception persists, and yes, I do understand why. When I publicly prove that the asseverations of an individual are patently false, can he or she help feeling attacked or that I exposed his or her deceit or ignorance? Who, however, is to blame for this? Should I simply remain silent and let others be misled? Wouldn’t I then be just as guilty and responsible as those who are being purposefully deceitful?

 

I take it back, with threads like these, it is bringing degree info down, I wish the personal crap would stop!

Maybe the structure of the board should be changed, and ad a forum named "Personal issues, personal attacks, put downs, and crap".........

Everybody back to their corners!