Question about DETC

As most on here know, in the past I shamefully pretended to know more about distance learning, external study and accreditation than I actually did. So now I have a question about DETC. Am I correct a school accredited by them cannot have doctoral programs and if they do those programs do not fall under DETC accreditation? I ask because University of St. Augustine says DETC accredits its Doctor of Physical Therapy program. I would guess this has to do with the whole issue of the type of doctorate but I just don't know much about how all this works. Any comments will be appreciated.

 

DETC can accredit "first professional Doctorates." If the first degree in the field is normally a doctorate, they can accredit the school.

They accredit a couple JD and St. Augustine's occupational and physical therapy doctorate programs.

 

This is a fairly recent change in DETC's policies.

 

Thanks Bill and Dennis. So, what theological doctorates would fall under this?

 

Jimmy:

I, for one, am not swayed by your efforts to create a new image. Personally, I believe you insult my intelligence when you proclaim to be ignorant of a subject that you and I have discussed at length. You already knew that the DETC required that a school drop it’s doctoral programs before even applying for accreditation. We discussed this a few months ago when I relayed to you my conversation with Dr. Graves concerning the Golden State School of Theology (a school considered by experts in the field to be a diploma mill). Moreover, you also knew that the DETC made allowances for first professional doctorates, as we also discussed this. Your statements ring as hollow as the ones from H.D. Shuemake in the email he sent you. When you base your new persona on false humility and naiveté, it comes across as exactly that—false.

It seems you are once again trying to flood DegreeInfo with posts whose sole intent is to portray yourself as something you are not. You ask us to forget and completely ignore the past. This, however, becomes an increasingly difficult task, as your current behavior is in no way different from your past behavior. You fail to realize (and therefore change) the cause of all of the previous behaviors that most people on this and other forums found to be so objectionable: that extreme deep-rooted need for attention that you believe you will somehow be able to parlay into power and profit.

 

At it again Gus.

Give it a rest, quit whining about Jimmy, and maybe worry about your own lack of credibility.

 

At it again, Dennis? Unable to resist your penchant for trichoschistism? Please point out, if you can, the numerous errors of fact in my posts that would lend credence to your asseveration that I lack credibility. If you cannot, then it stands to reason that it is you, sir, whose believability is to be questioned.

 

You know I do not know or care what the history of Mr. Clifton is, but it seems that if he was in violation of the TOS, and the above is tolerated then something is bad wrong. If the guy is being humble, and just coming in to make post then why in the hell does Gus feel the need in instigate an argument, or a fight other than the fact that seems to be his major MO. He is constantly looking for an argument, and a flame war.

Mr. Clifton if your past problems had to do with anger I would advise that you flee the temptation to even converse with Gus because if you are looking for support and encouragement you will not get it from this clown. He is just going to try to tear you down to try and make himself look good. Talk about seeking attention.

 

Hi Scott: Gus is absolutely right on this one. Please search old threads for Mr Clifton's history. Please search the current threads on the unA-A forum for a brief resume of this history: unctuous crap belied by shifting credential lists, misrepresentation of currently displayed material on his church's website, floods of sentimental "Christian" language, and a truly dismal track record. Mr Clifton says over and over again that he "repents" of his past patterns, but he continues to exhibit them moment by moment. Whether you like or dislike what Gus or I have said on other threads, please do not be fooled. Clifton edits his stuff faster than shit out of a goose, but don't overdo the discrepancy!

 

Hey, not knowing absolutely anything about what you are responding to has never stopped you before, so why now?

Unlike you, I refuted Jimmy’s assertions by making a clear and distinct point. All you are offering is your (now standard) criticism of me (and your ignorance).

It is statements like this that tries the patience of members of this forum toward newbies. If there was ever a time to tell someone to search the archives, this is it.

Of course, your statements would be much more meaningful if you already hadn’t admitted you don’t know what you are talking about.

Jimmy knows, and feigns ignorance; with plcscott it is exactly the reverse. What never fails to amaze me about you, plcscott, is how willing you are to make an utter fool of yourself by pontificating about matters about which you are completely clueless. Can anything epitomize the seeking of attention more than that?

 

Unc:

I do not at all claim to be anything of a religious man, but I do recall something about 70 x 7, and the man beating his breast asking for mercy.

I also recall the ones that puff themselves up were the ones that the God/man didn't take to kindly to.

Regards,

Scott

 

Gus:

I may be totally ignorant of everything, but you sir treat people with the most disrespect I have ever seen. Most of which is totally uncalled for. So if my commenting on that makes me a fool then so be it, but what does your treatment of others make you? As I have said so much lately, this is not just you, and someone else here and there. It seems you are constantly in to it with people. Have you ever thought that you may have a problem? Never mind.I don't know why I even asked that question.

 

Scott, other than making me queasy, Clifton has not wronged me, so the 70x7 does not apply. I have been aware of his peregrinations for almost 20 years. I would hate to have him fool people with an over the top imitation of repentance language. His tergiversational pattern is clear to all who carefully observe it. I hope he does not fool you.

You brought up the publican. Do you suppose that Christ would have held the publican up as a model of contrition if, while beating his breast with one hand, he was throttling with the other hand some poor unfortunate who could not pay him off, or, while lamenting his sins at one moment, in the very next moment he gave orders to defraud, extort, and steal?

Now, if your own eagerness to fight with Gus (or me) means that anybody Gus or I dislike is a friend of yours, then your own pride is giving you raccoon eyes. Given your belligerence, I don't expect that you will ever admit that you are incipiently being led along by the pious Mr Clifton. I hope that you will do a search of this site, aed, and distancedegree, in order to see the pattern to which I refer. I hope you will read carefully Mr Clifton's current postings and the replies to them. I hope you will look carefully at his church website--and quickly, too, since it changes rapidly even though Mr Clifton claims he can't access his own website.

I will never know if you do the search I suggest, but you will.

 

Nobody has accused you of being ignorant of everything; that is a pathetic plea for sympathy. Disrespect, by definition, means not respecting someone who merits respect. What do you know about Jimmy, and what about him, in your opinion, merits respect. Moreover, your use of “but you sir” is improperly punctuated. I appreciated the imitation (as it is said to be the sincerest form of flattery) but correct usage is essential.

First, what is called for or uncalled for is a matter of opinion, and as you have already professed ignorance on the matter, your opinion is, at best, suspect. Second, my treatment of others makes me someone who exposes frauds. What does your defense and criticism of me therefore make you? Your comments are identical to those who own and shill for degree mills (see Len’s comments on Uncle Janko’s post). Once again, what does that make you?

Bravo, plcscott, that is a very good question. Why don’t you provide a list of those individuals that I am “constantly in to it with?” I’ll provide a list of those individuals who own, have attended or received a degree from, or advocated substandard degrees. I doubt if any of the people on your list are not on mine, and that includes you. Moreover, I don’t think I have a problem with that many members of this forum. I do have a problem with one or two members who like to respond to any thread or post I make, choose ignore the point I was trying to make, take relish in exacerbating the situation, and try to make it all about me (or better yet, about them). They offer nothing of substance to this forum and contribute nothing to the discussion of distance education.

 

Gus:

I do not see the need to respond to people the way you do other than to antagonize them. You are always looking for a fight. For every positive post that you have made lately you have in turn made several comments to people that resulted in another thread like this one. I am not interested in Mr. Clifton, but this is just a damn forum. You act like the guy has given nuclear secrets to the Chinese. Why in the hell can't you just disagree with people in a civil fashion? If you pride yourself with such intellect then use it instead of the dumpster trash that you normally use. Why can't you just be cordial with someone? Disagree but be decent. Is that too much to ask from someone who has claimed such people skills?

 

I am not much into discussing religion because I see it as a personal matter. However, I cannot say that I do not sin daily. I am not going to puff myself up, and say thank God I am not like him which is exactly what the publican story was about. Are ye without sin? I did not think so. I know that every time I see a beautiful women I think (well you know what I think), so with that being said just watch the specks, and logs. I can assure you I will not be attending this guys church.

I am not looking to fight with anyone, but I just do not see the need in Gus constantly starting a flame. I just think he is out of line. If this guy was so bad then why did they let him back on?

On a side note I am not going to go back and research this Jimmy Clifton because I do not have the desire or the time. Whatever he has done does not change the fact that being rude and disrespectful to people is uncalled for.

 

If you don’t see the need, don’t do it yourself. Why do you respond the way you do to my posts (except, of course, to try and antagonize me)?

Why don’t you try simply not responding to my posts (especially considering the fact that they have nothing to do with you)? The only reason to respond is to exacerbate the situation and stroke your ego by attempting to cast yourself in the role of champion of the underdog, arbiter of good taste, and determiner of what constitutes civil discussion. In reality, all you are doing is seeking attention by picking a fight.

Can you ever be specific? How was I uncivil? All you are doing is revealing the fact that your obsession with me knows no bounds.

This from someone who just called me a clown (not to mention calling other members of this forum ass, fool, etc.)! Show me where I used similar language in my reply to Jimmy (or to anyone else, for that matter). You don’t (or better said, can’t) even disagree with any of the points I make in my posts; your posts are just one big unsubstantiated personal attack. You don’t get it do you, plcscott? The only people who consider you their champion are those who own or promote degree mills and substandard degrees.

 

Look Gus, I am not looking to be anyone’s champion. I think I get it just fine. I believe in speaking my mind. You don't like it, and others shy away from it because they do not want to see you personally attack them. If I pointed out every little remark that you have made that was offensive to people it would be a waste of time. You would come back and deny, and dance around each remark because you see yourself as always right and everyone one else as always wrong. So why should I waste my time? I get it fine. You have an inferiority complex, and must tear down others around you in order to make yourself feel worthy. It doesn't take a great education to see that. I am not into reading all your post in the past, and debating whether you went over the line. I have seen enough in the present.

 

Therefore, what you are saying is that you cannot or will not back up any of your vitupeorus invectives but you see no problems in making them anyway. It seems truth has been sacrificed at the altar of obsession. Can you tell me how my post in reply to Jimmy’s is any different from your post to me (except, of course, for the fact that I bring up specific points, can back them up, and my post was much more civil than yours)? Rich has Duggle Ass: I guess it’s only fair that I get you.

 

Absolutely!

What is that about?

You are a real winner Gus. A legend in your own mind!