Contreras admits error, to correct Oregon “illegal” list

Hi Chip


I can understand the editing you did to keep things in reason. At the same time, I think the lies, half truths and insults Haynes posts are way out of line and actually incite the issues. Technically I am sure they are way over the TOS limits. I would think there must be a way to deal with it and keep a civil discussion that includes him. Thanks for providing Degreeinfo.

 

I concur with Dave's thanks--and his concern.

Certain people engage in incredible acts of millism. Then they come here, and in Oriana Fallaci's famous phrase about terrorists, assume the role of "poor little darlings."

I trust that no one is fooled by this strategy. It exploits civility in order to destroy civility. I trust it will not, in the long run, succeed. I trust the moderators' concern for civility (one of the things that makes degreeinfo the only game in town). I also trust the moderators' vigilance against mills, shills, and trolls (one of the other things, together with a parallel vigilance from posters, that makes degreeinfo the only game in town).

 

If you mean that we ask follow-up questions to unsupported statements you make, you're right. These questions are not personal attacks; they're legitimate questions regarding claims you've made in support of positions you've taken.

As for your "review" of my dissertation, what could possibly make you qualified to offer an informed opinion? Besides, you've already said you aren't going to post you're comments here; why even bring it up? All it means is that I--and others--will lose out on the opportunity to deconstruct yet another set of uninformed opinions!

I, too, would ask Chip to consider your posts as they relate to the TOS.

 

I don't disagree with Dave and Rich's assessment of fnhayes posts as they relate to the TOS BUT

1. Without a foil on this forum espousing the views that fnhayes has it wouldn't give us as much opportunity to respond with the truth regarding academic fraud.

2. Without a foil on this forum espousing the views that fnhayes has it would be more difficult to describe how sinister and damaging academic fraud is to individuals entangled in it, to the academic community, and to society as a whole.

So I'm making a personal plea that fnhayes not be banned. I believe that he does far more good for the side he's arguing against than anyone.

 

Let millists, whether the degree-collector or proprietor or nihilist variety, post civilly all they want. By all means. But not with a protected status that enables them to establish an illusory credibility even as statements of fact (which establish just how illusory that credibility is) are muted precisely because good-faith posters genuinely value civility.

As I say, I trust the moderators not to permit a pro-mill immunity from criticism to flourish parasitically on the back of forum civility.

Best wishes to all.

 

I don't have the final say, of course, but I have no plans on banning him. I tend to agree with Bill that he actually hurts his own case with his arguments.

 

Fine, but please consider admonishing him--as you do others--when he steps out of line.

 

Will do, Rich.

I have a lot more free time now than in the last couple of months, so I plan on reading every post, every day, which I haven't been able to do for awhile.

 

The ODA website now has this footnote for WCU:

This change apparently was posted 5/17/04. Still no mention is made of the current, ACICS accredited WCU. Can we expect that sort of doubletalk when/if CCU is accredited?

 

I have no clue what you are talking about with your doubletalk comment. I'm sorry but could you please explain what you mean?
Thanks,