John Bear vs. Neil Hayes, Round 2

Neil Hayes:

Hayes, at Degreeinformation, never offered a shred of evidence to refute my research, but he (and some of his compatriots) did emit a lot of verbiage attacking DegreeInfo (50,000 "pornographic" posts) and so on.

Here is Round 2 in my look at the definitive statements by the graduate of Trinity College and University, and Knightsbridge, as posted at Degreeinformation:

Neil Hayes:
"A cursory look at a_few legitimate posters [on www.DegreeInfo.com] reveals that they quickly depart after suffering abuse from 'the gang'. These figures_confirm,_quite conclusively, that 'the gang' has_taken over complete total control of DI."

John Bear:
Oh, good: another definitive and easily-checkable statement. So let's check it out.

Hayes is saying that he has looked at some legitimate [presumably, non-'gang'] posters at DegreeInfo, and has observed that they quickly depart after suffering abuse.

In my research, I decided to look at all of the non-gang people who posted messages on DegreeInfo during 2004, well over one thousand of them. If I could find even one who continued to post long after his or her original message, that would contradict Hayes' statement. And if I could find lots of them, that would, once again, overwhelmingly refute Hayes' statement.

Let's start with the DegreeInfo poster with the screen name Abner. He first posted in October, 2004 -- and in April 2005 he was continuing to post regularly, 167 posts in all.

Now let's look at the DegreeInfo poster with the screen name TCord1964. He or she first posted in December 2004 -- and in April 2005 he or she was continuing to post regularly, 117 posts in all.

Now let's look at the DegreeInfo poster with the screen name Bush04. He or she first posted in May 2004 -- and in April 2005 he or she was continuing to post regularly, 221 posts in all.

I could easily go on and on and on in this vein, for hundreds and hundreds of DegreeInfo posters. I will not use up James' valuable bandwith presenting all my data.

But since even one case disproves the Hayes assertion, the notion of having hundreds and hundreds of them, once again demonstrates that he is overwhelmingly, catastrophically, spectacularly wrong.

[For the record, just to offer a little bit of my data, here are brief summaries of just 50 of the refuting cases I found: the screen name, the DegreeInfo sign-up date, the number of posts as of yesterday, and the date of the most recent post. Let the bombast, personal attacks,. evasions, obfuscations, smokescreens, and irrelevant comments begin!]

Abner, 10/04, 227, April 2005
abnrgr275, 3/05, 17, April 2005
alarmingidea, 6/04, 123, March 2005
alc712, 1/04, 208, April 2005
beachhoppr, 10/04, 87, April 2005
BlueMason,. 3/05, 31, April 2005
bush04, 5/04, 221, 3/29
CalDog, 3/05, 30, April 2005
Carlos Lorie, 12/04, 22, April 2005
carlosb, 3/04, 198, April 2005
dlady, 8/04, 58, April 2005
DRMarron, 7/04, 34, April 2005
dst10spr97, 2/04, 55, April 2005
DtechBA, 9/04, 211, April 2005
edowave, 6/04, 234, April 2005
Fortunato, 2/04, 118, March 2005
GUNSMOKE, 2/04, 189, April 2005
Icgreen, 8/04, 75, April 2005
Jake_A, 3/04, 231, March 2005
JassenB, 7/04, 59, March 2005
jayncali73, 67, April 2005
Jdaug, 11/04, 21, April 2005
JimS, 9/04, May 2005
Khan, April 2004, 55, April 2005
Lerner, 11/04, 420, March 2005
littlefauss, 2/05, 296, March 2005
LjinPA, 1/04, 151, March 2005
marcuscarey, 1/05, 51, May 2005
marylars, 7/04, 53, May 2005
MattMurphy, 6/04, 42, April 2005
Michael Weedon, 5/04, 46, April 2005
Mr. Engineer, 3/04, 661, April 2005
PhD2B, 10/04, 181, April 2005
Plantagenet, 1/05, 167, April 2005
renshi, 2/05, 68, May 2005
RobbCD, 2/05, 65, April 2005
salami89, 8/04, 108, April 05
Scotty, 10/4, 52, April 2005
scubasteviu, 2/05, 65, April 2005
spmoran, 7/04, 221, May 2005
Steve Foerster, 1/04/ 482, March 2005
Stock, 11/04, 113, March 2005
suelaine, 11/04, 22, April 2005
Tcord1964, 12/04, 117, April 2005
Ted Heiks, 2/05, 279, March 2005
Tireman44, 3/05, 41, May 2005
TomIVACVols, 7/04, 64, April 2005
William H. Walters, 1/05, 29, April 2005
wvatlanta, 11/04, 180, April 2005
ybfjax, 9/04, 124, March 2005

 

No argument here, but...

 

Dr Bear appears to have his ducks in a row.

 

He certainly has a particular duck in a row.

 

Uh, how and why is there a Round 2, if Round 1 ended prematurely with such a clear and decisive knockout?

 

And that list doesn't include posters such as

russ (Feb 2005),
Morgan Khanstein (Mar 2005) and
Dr. Latin Juris (Dec 2004)

All with posts within the last week or two.

Who do take an anti-ODA and greater approval of unaccredited schools stance, yet have not been banned or driven out.

 

Why does Neil Hayes keep ducking John's challenge?

 

Unfortunately, "Dr. Dr." Hayes routinely engages in exaggerations. He did it here all the time and was routinely deconstructed for it. But in Jamesville it is common behavior. What is uncommon there is what John is doing: challenging it. That would normally get you banned, but I guess James doesn't have the guts to do that to John.

 

That's twice. Maybe we need a poll on whether James will shoot himself in the foot?
Or, whether calling James "gutless" has any affect on that probability.
LOL

Tony

 

Re: Re: John Bear vs. Neil Hayes, Round 2

Eh, perhaps sometimes it is amusing to beat a dead horse?

 

Oy.

I completely agree, of course. I just wish we wouldn't honor them there with our attention here.

(Jamesville. Ha! that's a good one!)

Sorry to be so Crabby.

(See! I can pun, too!)

Oy... again -- only this time, it's me.

 

In the time I have been on this board I have questioned the true motives\value of becoming AACSB and the profitability of the so called not for profit schools. Not the most popular stances to take.

Yet at no time did I ever feel abused. In fact I find degreeinfo to be my number one source of distance learning information. I learned of NCU thanks to DI.

I am honored to be one of the refuting cases!

 

I see that the nattering nabobs on that other forum are chattering in full force about everything except John's challenge to Hayes' assertions. The name-calling, distortions, and other bad behavior are rolling along. Oh, and they're starting numerous threads, pushing the one with John's challenge down the list.

Create enough noise and the uncomfortable message will get drowned out. What's the use?

 

What, never felt abused?

Let's rectify that oversight!

You ^%$*(*&^%$#@!!!!!!!

Feel better now.....

 

DTechBA writes, in part, "^%$*(*&^%$#@!!!!!!!"
--------------

You idiot. Can't even spell simple words. Didn't you ever learn that it's "% before # except after $ or when sounded as &."

 

Oh my - that was good for a laugh, especially after having just proofed a rather large document. Thanks, John!

 

Re: What, never felt abused?

My significant other calls me almost the same thing so I am used to it. She thinks I am more of a @!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! though.

 

To Carlos

The significant other thinks you're a @!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're in trouble, get her some flowers, maybe she'll only think you're a %$#((((!

If she is a mom you can really suck up on Sunday....

 

To John

I am sorry, but I only speak &^%!@^&* as a second language...