You guys seem to be awfully sensitive around insults... if I said that Ike was a ignorant asshole who couldn't finish a BA in 4 weeks, you would be over me like white on rice. However AED did not die because of insults (arguable Levicoff added some much needed spice). AED largely died because of what CS Lewis called Bulverism in an essay after the same name. I will illustrate: You, based on your experience, study, whatever, state that Shitty U is, in fact, a Shitty U. I am an Alumnus of Shitty U and am greatly offended, so I "Bulverise". The first thing I do is attempt to discredit the basis of your opinion. Since your view is probably based on less than purely scientific research, it is easily to ridicule it and attribute it to subjective "feelings". The second thing I do is attempt to discredit you by finding out as much as possible about you, ridiculing any "weakness" and trying to show causation between your view and you background... "you feel this way because..." (if you refuse to "share" I may try to question your honesty, manliness, etc.). I have now demeaned you and your personal experience but, of course, have not said a single thing regarding if Shitty U is actually a Shitty U (hence the essance of Bulverism). Throw in a little harassment and AED dies. Obviously honest question regarding the basis of opinions, etc., is desirable but when they are asked only to facilitate the death spiral of Bulverism it may be time to do something.
Maybe we all went to Shitty U. (aka American U.), but we aren't stupid. Everyone here can see that you started these threads, you had flames in mind when you did it, and you aimed them directly at Lawrie, knowing full well that he is always ready for a fight. You were obviously trying to stir shit, so don't play innocent now, Lewchuk. You got just what you wanted. So for God's sake, stop whining. Either enjoy your fight with Lawrie, or shut up. But you can't have it both ways, being both the provocateur and the innocent victim.
Yet, as I recall, the questions were: 1) What evidence do you have of inferior academic competence? 2) You say you we cannot know the nature of a "real" bachelor's degree because we have not experienced it. Your are asked to relate your experience of a "real" bachelor's degree but you consistently refuse to do so. 3) Another poster offers by way of example of the superiority of conventional degrees and the inherent inferiority of DL degrees earned by examination, his own experience. Yet when asked to elaborate what that experience might be, he refuses. 4) We have the situation then, of posters arguing from the basis of their experience, and offering that experience by way of proof, yet refusing to detail that experience. 5) Example: a) "I am a professor, and I know that your degree is bogus". b) "But how do you know that"? a) "Because I am a professor". b) "What are you a professor of"? a) "I can't discuss that". b) "But how do make a judgment on the truth and veracity of what you are saying"? a) "You can believe me because I am a professor". b) "But you offer no evidence. You just say we should believe you on alleged experience you will not divulge". a) "Look, I am a professor, and you have a bogus degree, but instead of dealing with that, you try to discredit me by asking about my credentials". b) "I'm not trying to discredit you". "But you haven't said anything about the issue, other than that you are a professor and we should believe you". "OK, Professor, then, where are you a professor"? a) "That is completely irrelevant. I may be in harm's way if I tell you. I'll tell an Administrator! Oh, on second thoughts, no I wont! Have you no sense of shame"! b) "I think that if we are to believe you on the basis of your qualifications and experience, we have a right to inquire as to the nature of your qualifications and experience". a) "That is outrageous! I am going to start another thread. Then I am going to complain that you are breaking the rules by asking about my experience and credentials". b) "But you said we should believe you because you had a better education, validated by credentials, than we did. So shouldn't we know what those better credentials are"? a) "That is a scandalous idea! How dare you! It is tactics like this that brought down AED. This behavior threatens all of us"! b) "But what about the issue, professor? What about truth? What about backing up what you say with evidence? Doesn't have to be iron clad scientific proof, but it does have to pass the smell test. You have offered no evidence". "Are you really a professor, Professor"?
Actually, I am neither provocateur nor innocent victim nor did I particularly have flames in mind. However, when people start leaving threads (i.e EsqPhd) are constantly belittled and truly irrational positions held and repeated in order to simply try and "force through" a vested interest... this is resembling the AED that I left and I have to ask myself "who is moderating this thing?".
It does seem to me, Ken, that having lost the argument, you are now asking the referee to step in and save you. You have ran this way and that, to avoid answering relevant and pointed questions that go to the heart of the issue and to the heart of your veracity. 1) What evidence do you have to support you assertions that those earning a BA by examination are academically inferior to those earning a degree by more traditional means? Would you produce evidence please? What metric, in terms of outcomes can you cite? 2) You have told us we cannot know the requirements for a "real" bachelor's degree until we have experienced that "real" process. For the nth time, since you claim to know those requirements, it follows you have a "real" bachelor's degree. Would you detail that degree, please? What institution conferred the degree? What was the title of the degree? What was the major or concentration of that degree? Is it in fact the case that that degree would not receive wide recognition in the US and elsewhere? Is it true that you had difficulty having credits from that degree accepted by a Canadian technical college? This information is relevant, since if it is the case that your bachelor's degree is suspect, it throws doubt on your assertion that you know the requirements for a "real" degree, since you have already stated one must go through the "real" experience to understand it.
I'm not a moderator and have not participated in any of their discussions but I can give you my view. I believe that the no insult rule is good to get lurkers to actually post. I believe that it has enhanced the diversity of opinions. The timid poster is made less timid. Now you were probably hoping that I'd give you my opinion of Lawrie instead? However, I can't really do that because I don't want to intimidate any timid lurkers that might read this. Sorry.
Come now, Bill, you've hurt my feelings. Look, why don't you and I get together at your trailer? We'll, crack open a six-pack, discuss your arrest record, then I'll give you an attitude adjustment? Sound good?
Hi Lawrie, you've brought a few more laughs to my life. Come on by anytime, I'm not the type to turn down a jolly good time. P.S. Lawrie do keep up the tough talk, boorish behavior really becomes you.
You know, "lawrie", in another thread you personally attacked ME for claiming that you resort to personal insults when things don't go your way. Its a shame that Clinton couldn't have had a 3d term-- you would have fit right in with that bunch....
Boy! You've certainly developed a sudden major wood for me, haven't you? Yet, this degree of animus is not justified on the basis of my dealings with you. Doesn't ring true. Why then, such strong anger . . .? Checking your Bio, I notice you claim to be an attorney in, Mill Valley, CA 94941, and of course you have identical attitudes to those expressed by EsqPhD, who claimed to be an attorney in, San Ramon, CA 94583. These two addresses are not too removed from one another. Now let's see, An attorney at zip code CA 94xxx, with a keen interest in DL, has near identical opinions to another attorney at zip code CA 94xxx, right next door, who also has a keen interest in DL. Both have found degreeinfo.com, and both contribute to the board regularly, expressing the same opinions. Both also have developed the very same and very recent dislike for one particular contributor. It has been discovered one of these twins is partial to creating multiple identities. Recap: One, at least, uses multiple indentities Both claim to be attorneys Both exhibit the same prejudices, and are prone to the same invective Both show a particular dislike for the same contributor Both claim to reside in California Both claim addresses in California in the exact same area of the State 94xxx zip code Make you want to go hmmm . . . Wonder what your IP address might be. Wonder if you and EsqPhD have ever used the same IP Wonder if that other address is a home address Wonder if you are yet another persona of the EsqPhD collective
You know, lawrie, the x-files people have nothing over you If you think there's only one or two lawyers in the East Bay, or even on this board, you need a major dose of reality. You can't spit in any one direction out here and not hit a law school grad or law student. Knock yourself out with IP's: I have a static one. I, for one, do not feel that DL is all that exciting to waste my time creating multiple logins. I waste enough already reading this crap. OTOH, me, Esq, a few other posters, and John Bear all hail from the Bay area... coincidence, or are we all manifestations of Dr. Bear (perhaps things are getting boring out there, John)?
Folks: 1. More than one individual in this thread has been asked in private email to avoid personal attacks and/or bringing up personal issues unrelated to the posting topics. It is clear that the requests are not being heeded. 2. We *are* "sensitive" around personal attacks, because it was one of the basic founding decisions we made when we created this venue. 3. All posters are more than welcomed to participate at degreeinfo, but only if follow the policies established in our terms of service. 4. You can flame people and make personal insults on a.e.d., by private email, or wherever else you please, but not here on degreeinfo. 5. Further, we strongly request that speculation about multiple login IDs and such things, which constitute accusations of violations of our TOS be handled ONLY via private email to the admins, so that we may check and verify such complaints. There is no reason to "fan the flames" with unjust accusations. I know that some may disagree with this policy (and have posted to that effect), but it *is* our policy, and we do request that if you are a participant in our forum, that you follow the policies we've established.
In short, off-topic does not mean off-TOS. Those who pay (for the servers, program, and with "sweat equity" for managing) must have they "say." And that is not unreasonable. Gary
Chip, is there a way to prove my legitimacy? I was referred to this forum for assistance in filling in the gaps between my research for a DL PhD, but instead of assistance I keep getting blasted with references to my being a plant. I don't understand this - did something happen here that I'm not aware of? Thank you, Mary
I'm curious why this post was made eleven days after the previous post, bringing the thread back from well deserved oblivion.
