Comes now my response

Since the thread where NH posted his little private citizen "warning" and GS posted his little "I'm back" has been locked --which prevents me from posting this where it would be better suited -- my response is here:

From my Privacy & Well-Being Statement

My additional statement is this -- take it for what you will:

I have endeavored to behave in a civilized, calm, polite, respectful manner with everyone here. Where I have erred in the past in any of these regards, I have offered apologies, and have striven to repent of past transgressions. I have sincerely defended everyone's right to their private lives, and to freedom from harassment. I have conducted myself, both privately and publicly in an honorable way. As much as I could (without destroying my privacy on some matters), I have practiced full-disclosure.

It is your choice as to whether or not you wish to respond to that in kind, or by throwing prejudicial adjectives my way. If this is how you wish to live your life -- more power to you. But I won't be party to it.

Without prejudice, I am now invoking my right to silence on any matter which is, in my opinion and perception, and attempt to stir me to an ungentlemanly response.

 

Good for you. To quote one of my favorites on Degree Info:
"Ignore the trolls."

 

While I have not responded and refused to post anything in the previous thread. I feel compelled to offer you the advice offered to me as a younger man: "You are known by the company you keep." If you keep the company of shady characters you too will soon be suspect and eventually perceived as being just as shady, regardless of intention.

Interpret this as you will.

 

You know I agree with that and at the same time don't think it can be a hard and fast rule. Have you ever had a friend with a troubled past or bad reputation but who needed your friendship? Have you ever risked your reputation for friends or family? I think events like this show our true selfs and define us better than any reputation could.

 

I don’t get it, Quinn. Is that (as Dr. Evil put it) some kind of, “preemptive Shh?”

I saw nothing In Dr. Bear’s original post that could’ve been construed as a personal attack and saw no reason for him expressing any regrets over having disclosed the source of his information concerning Marquess University (College, whatever). In fact, this was indeed valuable information to anyone researching this entity.

Moreover I saw nothing in any subsequent posts that would lead to the locking of the thread. At one time DegreeInfo was the best source of online information concerning degree mills. Will inundating a thread with self-centered, pseudo-philosophical, woe-is-me ramblings, calls for public matters to be discussed privately, and false accusations that members of this forum (singling out journalists and researchers) are engaging in “speculation, innuendo, wild-guesses and maybes” lead to more thread closings, thereby suppressing factual information, inhibiting research, and stifling civil discussion to the point where this will no longer be the case?

As to the point you are trying to make in this thread, Quinn, what, precisely, are you saying? Do you feel your “integrity as an ethical professional” and your “dignity as a human being” has been compromised by the disclosure on this forum of your association with Marquess University? If so, why?

Moreover, why do you feel that any discussion of this association (not the public revelation of it, as you alone were responsible for that on your own Web site) or the entity in question might stir you to an “ungentlemanly response?”

Also, if I may so bold as to make a comment on your “Right to Integrity and Dignity“ statement, it seems to me that both integrity and dignity are not things anyone else can either give or take away from you. As such, it seems somewhat silly to claim a right to “protect” one’s integrity and dignity, as you are the only one who can undermine them.

Now, what the public perceives your integrity and or dignity to be is a different matter altogether. This is called reputation, and every human being does indeed have a right to protect his or her own. However, once again, probably the best way to do that is to make sound decisions as to what you say, who you choose to associate with, and, perhaps more importantly, what you do.

 

Facts

Dear Quinn, Please be advised that your business "associates" will get you in deep trouble. Perhaps you do not know it, but look at your result now. FACTS. Yours Truly, Nikolas Horthy

 

Mr "Horthy":

Stop stalking me.

Govern yourself accordingly.

 

Oy.

Quinn, I closed the other thread, in part so that "group on Quinn" could die down -- and so maybe you could calm down -- and maybe the whole thing could just sort of slip into obscurity. Think of it, maybe, as a sort of belated Christmas gift or something. The points were well made on both sides. Jimmy's suggestion that the thread had outlived its usefulness and should probably just be closed seemed like sage wisdom.

And I stand by it, even though a couple people whom I respect, and whose opinion of me I care about, contacted me privately and wrote, in effect, "Why'd you do that? Heck, we were just gettin' started!"

Had you just left it at that, your blood pressure would now be dropping; you'd be spending more time during this vacation-like week between Christmas and New Years enjoying the company of your lovely wife and other family members; you'd be feeling less like you have more friends over on the Crabby Forum than you do here (which, just so you know, is not true); you'd be posting about stuff here, and in ways, that make many readers around here say to themselves, "Man... when that Quinn guy is right, he's right!" and other such positive-about-you sentiments; and, most importantly, you wouldn't still be defending yourself.

You re-started this, so you're on your own. Though I don't consider Mr. Horthy to be "stalking" you, per se, stalkers and others similar are probably par for the course you've now chosen by starting this "let's-end-run-the-moderator's-intent-when-he-closed-the-other-thread" thread.

With Gus back to hold your feet to the fire, I'd say you've got your work cut out for you. Good luck! You'll need it.

 

If you start a thread with a post that identifies another specific member then you can't be too surprised when that member replies.
Jack

 

“Zona, Pallarea & Lane (1998) and Zona, Sharma & Lane (1993) provide a more comprehensive interpersonal typology based on the relationship between the victim and offender. In studies with the Los Angeles Police Department’s Threat Management Unit, Zona and colleagues (1993; 1998) initially categorised stalkers according to three basic categories. The later discovery of a fourth covered those instances where the individual claims that someone is stalking them in order to assume the role of the victim. The results of the above studies indicate the following classifications:” [emphasis added]

“False Victimisation Syndrome: This group accuses another person, either real or imaginary of stalking (Hickey, 1997) to foster sympathy and support from those around them. The majority of the perpetrators seem to be female (adapted from Zona and others; Mullen and Pathe, 1994; Mullen, 1997).” [emphasis added]

SOURCE: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cyberstalking/3.html


If you accuse someone of criminal behavior and do not have proof, you open yourself to accusations of libel.

If you make ominous legal warnings on a public forum without justification, you may be perceived as not only attempting to stifle civil discussion, but of being a putz as well.

 

Protest

Dear "Quinn", I think you protest too loudly, esp.with the free counsel I have given you. Not Stalking as the moderator said, but facts. Yours Truly, Nikolas Horthy P.S. For Quinn: Don't like my family name, too bad.

 

See what I mean, Quinn?

(Man! You just can't help some people!)

 

Gus:

As I just said otherwhere, I have no issue with you. The public apology I offered you months ago, stands in spirit and intent.

Anyone wants to whine about anyone else by using my name as some kind of fulcrum does so with my explicit disapproval. The world is full of too much negativity, and I don't want to be any part or party of it.

Take care and God bless you and yours this season, in the new year, and for years to come.

And the same to everyone else here.

Be well.

 

Dear Quinn:

Why is Mr Horthy's name in quotes in your post? I don't understand. This question is entirely separate from the general run of this thread, as I have other fish to fry.

With utmost calm lost in dissertationland,
Janko

 

It seems obvious that Mr. Quinn primarily wants attention. That's why he has publically announced his departure from distance education discussion boards in the past (which then didn't take place) or why he revives closed threads without having a lot to add to the refreshed discussion. My guess is that Mr. Quinn is a talented young man, who perceives himself as being highly-gifted, whereas his surroundings either don't share this opinion or fail to treat him differently to how he believes he should be treated.

In my personal opinion Mr. Quinn has in the latest threads not positioned himself very favorably in terms of argumentative strength. Also I personally am not impressed by the quality of publications he referenced, that are available f.e. via citeseer. While I do not want to stir conversations about how to measure the quality of academic publications, I would propose that it might be in best interest of Mr. Quinn to let these topic by now die down (maybe by also locking this thread in order to not further spark the flame?), take a short break and then be back in old glory in 2006. Happy new years eve everyone.

Best wishes

 

Intellectuals are .................different

Intellectuals are..........................how should I write this............


"Distinto?"

 

Gus,

Glad to see you back on board!

 

Sorry Quinn, your apparent plea for sympathy has instead elicited an amused response, at least in my case.


Let sleeping dogs lie. If you're concerned that your reputation has been besmurched by someone referring to a tidbit of information that you yourself have publically posted then remove said tidbit of information and be quiet. Instead you complain about barking dogs by waking up the dogs to tell them that you don't have to talk about it if you don't want to talk about it but that if you don't talk about it, you are still not giving up your right to talk about it.

 

Ohmygod... I actually understood that.