+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Gus Sainz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    1,738

    Talking Who Can Remember When?

    In keeping with the recent trend of nostalgia in movies and television, and to satisfy the history buffs among us, the following (however relevant) is being reposted for entertainment purposes only.

    Although it occurred years before MIGS sued Dr. Steve Levicoff, who can forget this lively (and in many ways prescient) exchange from a thread entitled Moderated Newsgroup? from the old AED?

    (Quotes, ASCI art, and sig files have been edited for brevity and indicated by a “snip”. A single expletive was deleted and noted.)


    Date: 1996/05/15
    • Steve Levicoff wrote:
      I'll take my stand for the First Amendment - period. That means putting up with people who take a strong stand for the quality represented by accreditation. Even if we're occasionally smug about it.
    I don't think the First Amendement protects you from slandering non-accredited schools and calling them Mills, bogus, etc., when they are in fact legal (legitimate). I think that is what everyone is very annoyed with you for, and why you are the aim of our flames.

    May I add that your signature file violates the rules of nettiquette. A sig file should be no more than 8 lines total, including spaces, stars, ads etc. In some newsgroups they cut sig files at 6 lines.

    -Sheila Danzig



    Date: 1996/05/16
    • Sheila Danzig <sheilad1@aol.com> writes:
      I don't think the First Amendement. . . Snip
    As you know, Sheila, "slander" is a legal term which indicates verbal or spoken defamation. (The correct term for written defamation is "libel," but for the purpose of our discussion, I'll consider that a matter of semantics.) Nonetheless, there is an old expression to the effect that the ultimate defense to a charge of defamation is *truth*. And, thus far, no school which I have accused of being a degree mill has had the gumption to sue me for my comments - nor have any of the hundred-plus schools for which I used the term in my book "Name It & Frame It" - despite my having invited them to do so, especially after receiving initial litigation threats from some 50 schools.

    I can't help observing, however, that the term "everyone" is a bit broad, since I can only think of four newsgroup participants who have ever flamed me, and all four have been affiliated with schools that are unaccredited. I have never been flamed by accredited schools, graduates of accredited schools, accreditation advocates, or persons who have been tipped off by degree mills - merely by those who hold unaccredited degrees, or persons who run schools I have accused of being degree mills. In short, I must confess to being quite satisfied with my track record of flamers versus fans (though, quite frankly, I'm not seeking either).
    • May I add that your signature file violates. . . Snip
    *Whose* rules of netiquette? I've gotten more compliments than you can imagine on my tag lines and, considering the fact that prospective students are often led down the primrose path of merde de boeuf, this group could use a little humor. But, then again, since my own degrees are all from regionally accredited colleges and universities, I guess I'm just not as sensitive as others.

    I'm reminded of studying with John Warwick Montgomery, the noted apologist, who used to require that papers written in his classes be a maximum of ten text pages, although students could add as many endnotes as they chose. Needless to say, a few would write 10-page papers with 40 pages of notes. At least my sig lines are not more lengthy than my messages themselves, and I've resisted the temptation to add kinky ASCII art. (So far.)

    ASCII art Snipped

    Access your inner bitch

    Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. Snip

    With the following freebie added to access *my* inner bitch:
    [ASCI art of two individuals jousting snipped]

    (In a spirit of collegial humor - Sheila and me.)



    Date: 1996/05/18
    • Steve Levicoff wrote:
      As you know, Sheila, "slander". . . Snip
    You are correct here Steve. I was in the wrong mental set, as I think of this as talking to each other. *Thank you* for considering it a matter of semantics - I would hate to think what would happen to me if you did not forgive my error. <g>
    • Nonetheless, there is an old expression. . . Snip
    Steve, the fact that they have not sued you does not mean you are right. It means that we have a legal system that makes suing you almost impossible to be financially worthwhile.

    Is this a new definition of truth? A statement that does not get challanged in court. "If I don't get sued I must be telling the truth." I can't wait for the next edition of the Webster-Levicoff Dictionary.

    A MORE significant issue to examine is HOW many of these schools have been closed down for not operating in a lawful (synonym of legitimate) manner?

    Your twisting of the language does little to support the value of all of your accredited degrees.

    Rita's honest descriptions of herself and her degrees makes me believe that perhaps CCU does a better job producing PhD's.

    -Sheila



    Date: 1996/05/18
    • Steve Levicoff wrote:
      [ASCI art of two individuals jousting snipped]
      (In a spirit of collegial humor - Sheila and me.)
    I did get a chuckle here, but I don't think we are just having a little joust here. You are defaming schools and I have ended up defending schools that I am not a champion of. I do not think that an unaccredited degree should be a first choice. It took me YEARS to decide to go with an unaccredited degree. And while I am VERY happy that I did, and the degree serves me perfectly, it is not my intention to be a champion of non-accredited shools. However, I can not allow you to state your opinions as facts about any subject.

    So if this is all done in humor and jest on your part, please remember it
    is much more serious than that.

    -Sheila



    Date: 1996/05/19
    • Sheila Danzig <sheilad1@aol.com> writes:
      Steve, the fact that they have not sued you. . . Snip
    I never argued that point, which would be about as valid as your
    argument from the Danzig Dictionary that if a school is not closed down,
    it must be legitimate. Truth stands on its own, validated by testimony
    from primary sources, many of which I have quoted in these posts.
    • A MORE significant. . . Snip
    Hmmmm . . . I can't help thinking that, every time you use your "lawful=legitimate" argument, you have to go quite a way down the definition list in Webster's to support your argument.

    Much like the average public or social services agency, resources are limited. However, I have participated with both state agencies and the media in closing down *several* degree mills over the past few years.
    • > Your twisting of the language. . . Snip
    Pardon the term, dear one, but in the world of psychology , this is known as "mind [expletive deleted]." (Don't blame me, campers, I didn't invent the term.) Also known as "projection," in which the person making the argument attempts to transfer the syndrome he or she exhibits to another person.
    You'll notice that I have never felt the need to defend my regionally accredited degrees, whereas you, Rita, Scott, and others here are *constantly* attempting to define your unaccredited degrees. Perhaps that says something to all of the prospective students who read our posts when seeking guidance for themselves.

    ASCII art Snipped

    Apparently you've mistaken me for your therapist

    Steve Levicoff, Ph.D.
    Snip



    Date: 1996/05/21
    [I]
    • Steve Levicoff wrote:I never argued that point. . . Snip
    Back to twisting scriptures, eh Steve. You have turned it into an art. I have said that if it is LAWFUL it is by definition LEGITIMATE.

    I know what both Lawful and Legitimate means and (unlike you) do NOT use my own dictionary.

    Since you refuse to learn the Miriam Webster definition, and continue to attack me for using that definition I have decided not to discuss this any longer. I urge you to write Miriam Webster and demand that the definition is changed to suit your needs as your needs are all that matter to you.
    • Steve also wrote:
      Pardon the term, dear one. . . Snip
    That is totally uncalled for and disgusting. Having run out of anything close to an arguement you resort to vulgarities. I have NEVER in quite some time of reading this group seen that type of language used. And you call yourself a REVERAND. And you call yourself a BIBLE expert. I didn't invent the term either, but I certainly would never use it. I doubt that there is one person in this group that would.
    • You'll notice that I. . . Snip
    Perhaps given the quality of your posts, you should defend it. I have NEVER defended my degree. Only stated its usefulness for me. Rita and Scott have only replied to your attacks.

    I suspect that Steve loves these attacks going on since they allow him to reply with his giant sigfile that violates internet rules (one such as Dennis or yourself, might even call the sig file not legitimate.)

    Therefore, unless the subject changes, I will refrain from replying. Steve is unwilling to do anything except attack others. If this were a moderated group, I assue you that you would be thrown off.

    -Sheila
    Last edited by Gus Sainz; 05-04-2002 at 10:46 AM.
    Gus Sainz
    DegreeDiscussion.com

  2. #2
    Gus Sainz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Who Can Remember When?

    Were those really Sheila’s last words to Steve? Did she actually say, “I assue you…” to him?

    Was this some kind of prescient Freudian slip? ;)

    In any event, I propose that the word assue be added to the legal lexicon:
    • assue – to file a lawsuit so incompetently as to make a complete *ss out of the plaintiff (see also assuit)

    :D :D :D
    Gus Sainz
    DegreeDiscussion.com

  3. #3
    Tom Head is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Jackson, Mississippi
    Posts
    2,015
    I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never heard Steve refer to himself as a "Reverand."


    Cheers,
    Tom Head, Ph.D.
    http://tomhead.net

  4. #4
    Bill Huffman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Posts
    4,394
    Thanks Guz for the most entertaining snips.

    I can see now the big clue used by Steve that "gave his gut" the feel that MIGS was to eventually be exposed to be a roaring degree mill. It appears that Shiela Danzig is a con-artist to her core. I bet that CEU is very sorry that they weren't more careful because it reflected very poorly on them.

  5. #5
    levicoff Guest
    Originally posted by Tom Head
    I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never heard Steve refer to himself as a "Reverand."
    Quite correct. Although I have taught at both a seminary and the graduate school of a Bible college, I'm about as un-reverend (and un-reverand) as they come. (All together now, "Duuuuhhhhhhh...")

    Gus, thanks for an amusing walk down memory lane. Funny, after all this time I would still be tempted to take Sheila to lunch the next time I'm in Ft. Lauderdale. But 'm afraid that she would have me served with papers while I'm there in an attempt to sue me in Florida court because of my presence in the state, so I"ll just have to let her wonder how many times I've been down there when she hasn't known about it. :D

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15