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

Tearing others apart, and boasting of ones self is life's main objective.

All for the common good of distance learning of course!

 

Mark, I am not in the habit of keeping a running count of my posts in any forum. I posted the number 27, because that is number I could verify (and I knew that some pedantic putz would challenge the veracity of my figures if I could not corroborate them). However, for you to make an assertion that my statement is false, you must, I am sure, have evidence in hand to corroborate your claim.

A search of all my posts on CollegeHints still includes many admonitions and requests for moderation (what you call “trivial variants”). Since you now seem to be claiming some kind of insider status or insight as to the inner workings of CollegeHints, what evidence do you have that posts of mine were deleted (you specifically stated by the moderator), and if they were, which ones and how many? I will be glad to update and revise my figures (for whatever reason you deem it to be so important) as soon as the information is forthcoming.

I don't discount the possibility that some of my posts may have been deleted, but why do I get the feeling that if I had said 28, you would’ve also said that my statement was false and used the search results as evidence of my lack of veracity?

 

An excellent question, seekinghelp. The answer can easily be ascertained by figuring out which of these individuals (whom you have characterized as “educational idiots’) posting here routinely post on the other forum, and whether their posts here are nothing more than an attempt to “stir the pot.”

 

I give up.

Rich Sainz and Gus Douglas? That was who used the term "stir the pot."

I'm done with this thread. I've got to get back encouraging people to enroll in degree mills.

 

Re: Question of the day

Dennis, what is this supposed to mean. I believe that Rich and Gus are generally well respected on this forum.

 

Not that it matters, but to be specific...Rich posted 169 times and Gus 27, not counting deletes. I was a little low in my estimate.

Mark, my reply about CCU was to clarify the provenance of any degree from that institution in response to Rich's implication. In reply to your question, my position is: States are chartered with the responsibility to regulate education within their respective jurisdictions. It matters that schools meet State standards and in those States that have enacted appropriate legislation, approval standards. CA happens to have an extensive Education Code which includes State Approval standards, procedures, and policies.

Gus, I appreciate your response. I think we differ in that your values are more traditional. There are many upstanding citizens who are pursuing education outside of traditional boundaries however. I believe your definition of degree mill is a bit broader than many. As long as the work is being done, I don't have much problem with people exploring the limits of acceptability. Education is a diverse market, with many choices. I don't think it's productive to react negatively to people who want to talk about their educational pursuits even though they may be outside mainstream processes. We mustn't assume that those who are seeking alternative avenues to diplomas are all thieves and liars. Even RA allows students to test out for a degree with little actual course work... which is an aberration to me, but hey... it's America. IMO, we should all draw the line at the degree for no work industry, "have Visa will graduate, no questions asked and it only takes the time to ship the parchment". This is a great disservice and fraud.

 

What's your point Mark?

Kirkland said "I estimate they posted well over 150 times". Are you saying that 50 or 100 of Gus's posts were deleted by the moderator. Do you believe that Gus is being deceptive and dishonest? Is your point that maybe it is closer to 30? If so why not say that? why imply that you think Gus is a dishonest liar? Or do you not have any point?

 

Notice the nucleus that threads like these always revolve around.

The trick is to never admit you are wrong, eloquently put others down, and call others names by inference without being specific, and justify everything whether it makes sense or not.

If only the pedantic putz's could ever learn such skills.

 

[Q

I don’t know if they are learning, plcscott, but it certainly does seem as if some of them are trying.

Nevertheless, to return the discussion to the subject of distance learning, did you ever find those Physics courses you needed?

 

This, IMHO, is the most germane question. Mark appears to be most interested in criticism. He doesn't really care who he is criticizing or what philosophical position he is criticizing as long as he can criticize. I have no real problem with this as it seems to represent a sort of "watchdog" stance, which has it's place in many endeavors. If you have a good argument then Mark will be quiet. If you make a mistake (or at least if Mark thinks you've made a mistake) in an argument then you might expect that he will wade in. He seems to have the stance of a journalist who reports on what he sees/hears/reads. This, again, is OK with me as long as Mark is willing to go down in the record as someone who never took a stand. The movie critic who never tries to make his own movie is somehow rather a sad figure to me.
With all that being said I will conclude with, Whatever.
Jack

 

I have no "insider status" at CollegeHints, nor would I accept such.

Shortly before Gus was banned, he posted the message "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?'" a large number of times. I don't know the exact number. (Gus has written "I had the foresight to make copies of all relevant Websites before they were altered or had threads and posts removed", so maybe he knows.)

All but one of those instances have now been deleted, I presume by the moderator. The remaining instance is at:
http://www.collegehints.com/boards/showthread.php?p=2851#post2851
It was the large number of (now deleted) instances that occasioned my remarks. What's left of Gus's posts at CollegeHints does not look like misbehavior.

 

Not all of them.

 

I didn't say any of that stuff. You did. I implied that the kinds of criticisms made about unaccredited schools--the kind that get one banned from CollegeHints--would be outside your range because you also have degrees from an unaccredited school.

Personally, I don't think having a degree from CCU enables anyoen to stereotype you. But someone with such a degree would not be expected to criticize the bold, sweeping statements about unaccredited schools made on that board.

I've always listed CCU as one of the few unaccredited DL schools I would have some faith in. But because I've been critical about people over-inflating the value of such schools--as you just did--some people blur my statements are replace their own interpretations.

I never said you weren't qualified to make observations about such schools. I implied you wouldn't because they--if truthful--would betray the attempt on that board to promote those schools as something they most certainly are not, again as you just did.

BTW, your "reverse argument" is not only irrelevant--as I've just pointed out--it's nonsensical.

The notion that California approval has some meaning academically is fine, but that meaning is utterly tiny compared to recognized accreditation. Get used to it; that fact will follow you for as long as you use that degree.

 

Perhaps it comes down to whether that board's owner acted fairly. Don't make a comparison like that when the circumstances are entirely different. Besides, I didn't act as a "conduit" for Gus. Gus pointed out something to me in an e-mail. I went and check things out for myself and commented on it for myself. But it would have been wrong not to acknowledge his contribution to that.

Funny how the truth gets in the way of that agenda--and the defense of it. Actually, "funny" isn't it. "Disgusting" is more like it.

 

Are you saying no one else ever did? Neither Gus nor I initiated any discussion about Knightsbridge. Neil did that with his announcement about the Ph.D. they were awarding him. So soon, in fact, that the ink wasn't even dry on the diploma--better to change that major!

Why wasn't Neil banned? Why wasn't James Crabb banned for mentioning schools? Marianus? He did, too. But they're still there. Home, sweet home.

 

Re: Question of the day

Typical ad hominem from Dennis.

 

First, because many people who post both there and here persist in continuing this. Second, because many people have nothing else to offer to a discussion except personal attacks.

 

In the absence of any evidence to prove that an accusation that someone else’s statements are false, a gentleman (never mind the fact that a true gentleman would never make such an accusation without incontrovertible proof) would immediately issue a retraction and an apology.

Perhaps in the future it would be preferable to couch such statements in wording such as “It is my impression that the posts in question numbered more than what has been alleged,” rather than the emphatic pronouncement you made.

 

I truly am curious as to what your point was in pointing out that the official tally at 27 was lower than the actual. Were you really meaning to insinuate that Gus was being dishonest? If not that, was there any point that you were trying to achieve?

Here's my point Mark. It appears to me that you've recently taken it upon yourself to not try and understand the intent of certain posters' posts but, instead you've seemed to be unable to see the forest for the trees in those posts and instead are peeling back the bark of a tree and finding a rather irrelevant insect you declare that the forest must be tainted and false. If I'm mistaken, sorry but I'm calling it like I see it. Please correct my misunderstanding.

Thanks,

 

A voice of reason. More and more this is what we get around here.

More's the pity.



Tom Nixon