SATS Principal has degrees from "degree mill"?

Dr. Michael Mouse, ThD in Disnology

I agree.

I think North American culture puts too much weight in humility and self-deprecation.

As Dali said, "Have no fear of perfection--you will never reach it." (He may as well have been quoting scripture, eh what?)

Also consider the following quotes:

"If a man is to accomplish all that is demanded of him, he must deem himself greater than he is. So long as he does not carry this to an absurd length, we readily put up with it." —Goethe

"Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast."--Matthew 6:16 (KJV)

Which to say -- you have something you feel strongly about and you expressed the courage of your convictions. Is that pride? Maybe there's some pride in having the courage to hold to one's convictions, yes, sure. But does that mean you lack the prerequisite dose of humility? No. Human beings are humbled the moment they drink their first glass of water of the day, take in their first breath of air, eat their first meal. They are humbled by such things because these things remind them that they are not self-sufficient in any way. From the Queen of the UK herself (God Save the Queen) to the ditch digger -- all must take the first breath of the day, drink the first drink, eat the first meal. The sun also rises and the sun also sets. The great Equalizer is in constant motion.

As long as one acknoweldges the source of the gift (SDG), one is safe of soul.

So don't be hard on yourself about it, Bill.

We’re all ghost riders,
our steeds ambitions,
seeking soul waivers
for our ambitions;

listen to the criers
at their ablutions
and fear deniers
at their contritions.

Those a-jangling spurs,
six guns at our side,
and those empty words
we have all but cried;

The distinction blurs,
as we jump to ride,
these ranges of ours
in the Meadow Pride.

 

good night, Gracie

Isn't the actual topic of this thread pretty well exhausted? While I appreciate the stuff posted by Bill and Quinn, scorn the festering greenhorn, and continue to defend my esteemed friend Dr Peppler, I think we've all pretty much had our say--on the topic.

 

Enough.

Though I did not start this thread, or dub it with its troublesome title that singles-out SATS's principle as allegedly having degree mill credentials, I am the one who fanned this thread's flames in its beginning. Said flame fanning was well-intentioned, but it has had, nevertheless, some regrettable and unintended consequences.

I have watched this thread grow, to date, to three web pages full of posts largely interesting, relevant and potentially useful to the reader... which is, after all, one of DegreeInfo's biggest reasons for existing in the first place. Even the posts through which their authors take more or less petty swipes at one another are par for the course in a place like this and are, therefore, of no real concern to me here.

But there is at least one thing about this thread that concerns me very much:

• It has come dangerously close to hanging a dark cloud over the name of a respected and beloved theologian -- and principal of an accredited seminary -- who should not have been made to endure being the overly-scrutinized object in a larger debate about persons with recent legitimate credentials who also happen to have somewhat less recent and potentially illegitimate ones.

This is a most unfortunate unintended outcome of that most legitimate of discussions which may -- and should -- be conducted in a place like this. For my part in that having happened here, I am deeply and truly sorry. I say that now, from my heart, publicly and directly to Dr. Peppler, to whom I am certain this thread has brought no end of undeserved personal pain and discomfort; and the propagation of which has caused me untold hours of fruitless investigation since into the means by which one may reasonably and effectively unring a bell.

Even this thread's starter has expressed his regret over the direction it has taken with respect to its ultimate impact on the good Dr. Peppler and SATS itself. With every post made here, the thread title "SATS Principal has degrees from 'degree mill'?" gets bumped back up to the top of the thread list, where those not fully advised in the premises are given, by said title alone, an undeservedly bad impression of both an excellent accredited seminary and its devoted founder... potentially helping to undo a history of deserved favorable commentary around here about SATS, generally.

When I did the aforementioned flame fanning at this thread's outset, I had hoped for a larger, non-person-specific discussion of the careers and academic histories of those, generally, who have impressive and accredited credentials peppered with a few unaccredited and possibly unimpressive ones. In light of the fact that we, and other fora, so often engage in conversation -- some of it quite contentious -- about the credibility of individuals who may have a questionable credential or two in their pasts but who either objectively are or claim to be legitimate in spite of it, I felt it was an opportunity to help get to the bottom of a chronically vexing issue. Because some of the folks who make the strongest arguments in favor of the credibility of individuals with questionable credentials in their pasts tend to be over in what I call The Crabby Forum, there really was an element of intentional Glasnost in what I wrote at the time.

But in those words of invitation, I did a terrible job of conveying that intent; and my own words of discussion encouragement caused, instead, for there to be launched here a painful critique of the individual Dr. Peppler's decades-old academic choices which, given the times and his circumstances then, turn out to be both explainable and understandable. Moreover, even if that were not so, his accomplishments since, and his most recent accredited degree, have earned him all the redemption for which a man could possibly hope... and which we could ever possibly hope to grant. The very nature of that sort of redemption -- or our refusal to grant it, whenever that's the case -- was, in fact, the intended target of my discussion-inviting flame fanning. Instead, something hurtful for Dr. Peppler happened. Something unnecessary. Something for which I, to the degree that I caused it, am, I repeat, deeply sorry.

So I am going to close this thread now... but not because I believe that the larger discussion -- one that doesn't require Dr. Pepper's service, or any mention of SATS, as an example -- should not be continued here. On the contrary, I think it most definitely should. Such discussion here is useful to the reader; and it is good exercise for us all to examine these issues so that our respective positions, and our reasons for them, may be further refined and solidified.

But Dr. Peppler's yeoman's service has now concluded. He has endured enough abuse here. Not surprisingly, he has served the cause, albeit involuntarily, with courage and dignity. It is tragic that he had to do so at all, of course; but that's partly my fault, and I'll have to find a way live with that... and to hope that Dr. Peppler will forgive me for my recklessness.

It's time that the inflammatory and potentially-harmful title of this thread be allowed to drop down the thread list and into the archives here... becoming, with any luck, out of mind as it falls out of sight. I invite someone here to start a new thread, if they like, where the larger aforementioned issue -- but sans any mention of Dr. Peppler or SATS -- may be continued.

And so it goes.