New Discussion Forum

they would have been hard to follow considering that they where posted just today....

 

A new development, according to Glen (the admin), he was trying to Edit the St. Regis thread and accidentally deleted it. He also said that he didn't intended to have such "High Maintenance" posters on his site. He also requested that we start the thread again, but only use truthful information. I personally have tired of the evavise information we have been given, and the threats of lawsuits, and insults (which I probably started according to some) and the fact that they haven't really proven anything to me. I will continue to read St. Regis threads, but I highly doubt I will continue to comment on them. As far as I am concerned my mind is made up. I will never get the answers I would like from either the school or their alumni/teachers

 

We are all thinking the same thing, I am sure.

 

Administrator Glen has closed the (new) thread:

http://www.collegehints.com/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118

I thought it went rather well. Bob (who said "Dear Mark, and all friends at another less civil forum, tell Dr. Gollin that yes, Bob here, is Robert S. Stefaniak from the St. Regis faculty page and music department. I simply won't post there.") had the last word and (by quoting Dennis Chandler) the most words. But I'd be very surprised if any prospective student decided to enroll after reading the thread.

 

I think I will be gone from collegehints soon. I said I didn't appreciate liars and frauds without referring to anyone in particular. Wrong move. Deleted and warned. The degree mill guys seem to own the place.

 

Dennis Ruhl wrote:

> I said I didn't appreciate liars and frauds without referring to
> anyone in particular. Wrong move. Deleted and warned.

I don't think so, Dennis. Perhaps you posted some other message that I didn't see, but here is your message whose text Glen replaced with "Deleted - Strike One":

Where did Bob admit to purchasing his degree?

 

See this thread:
http://www.collegehints.com/boards/showthread.php?threadid=92

Here, Bob talks about his SRU Master's Degree.

If he didn't buy it, how else did he get it?

Mark, who's side are you on?

 

You're right Mark, the liars and fraud thing is still there. I think the deleted post was simply an innocuous remark about not understanding what the previous posters rambling comments were about, certainly not insulting.


Bob - purchased degree?? He has an honourary doctorate from St. Regis. I assumed he bought it, sorry, received it in response to a $1,000 donation. Did I miss a denial???

 

Mark seems to have an identity crisis. Those St. Regis doctorates are starting to look pretty good.

 

piratesmac wrote:

> See this thread:
> http://www.collegehints.com/boards/showthread.php?threadid=92

Thanks! I hand't read that.

> Here, Bob talks about his SRU Master's Degree.
> If he didn't buy it, how else did he get it?

OK, his Ph.D. is honorary, which in the case of SRU means "purchased". But he claims to have earned his Master's by "prior learning portfolio assessment credit".

> Mark, whose side are you on?
>
>

My advice to everyone is "Stay away from Saint Regis University." But (unlike others here) I think at least some SRU personnel are sincere, and I enjoy talking with them and learning more about the operation.

Think of a judge trying to ensure a fair trial. He wants the defendant to have a fair hearing, and may rule in favour of the defence on some motions. And it's not uncommon for the defendant to be convicted on some counts and acquitted on others, yes?

 

Mark,

Why the warning?
Do you know something?

This is in direct contradistinction to the stance you took a number of months ago against a certain SRU Alumni.

 

Len has already threatened me with a Libel Lawsuit. According to
http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html here is the defenition of Libel:

DEFINITION: Libel is the publication of a false statement, (and is not a privileged communication) which injures one's business or personal reputation.

A plaintiff who sues for Libel must prove all of the above and be able to demonstrate some type of resulting damage. This could include being shunned by friends and associates, inability to obtain work because potential employers believed the false accusations. Some states allow for a jury to assess damages based generally on reputational harm.

Privileged communication means statements made during judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, and those made between spouses (in most states). You can lie all you want under these circumstances and not be able to be successfully sued for Libel.

Now, my calling Len a Big Fat Hairy Liar, is only my opinion. I seriously doubt that I have caused him any injuries.
Now, based on the way we talk about SRU we migt be considered Libelous (sp?) The website can not necessarily be held libel for our actions and speach. This is based on the fact that a while back someone tried to sue Compuserve for hosting a news letter that libeled someone, and the suite against Compuserve was thrown out because they can not control what their clients post. Now, if St. Regis could prove in a court of law that we have truly damaged there reputation, and that they truly are a legitamate school they might have a suit against some users. Lets all hope, that this doesn't happen.

 

piratesmac wrote:

>> My advice to everyone is "Stay away from Saint Regis University."
>
> Why the warning?
> Do you know something?

Wouldn't that be your advice, too? My advice is based on what we've already discussed in public.

> This is in direct contradistinction to the stance you took a
> number of months ago against a certain SRU Alumni.

You must be thinking of the SRU alumnus who e-mailed me a series of threats; but where's the contradistinction?

 

aw man, I didn't get any e-mail threats....

 

mringer quotes:

> A plaintiff who sues for Libel must prove all of the above and
> be able to demonstrate some type of resulting damage.

Well, it seems that for every legal Web page, there's an equal and opposite legal Web page.

"Does one have to prove damage in a libel action?
No. The law presumes that some damage will flow from the publication of a libel."
-- http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html#Number%204

Even if in some jurisdictions the plaintiff has to prove damage, he can always fall back on "intentional infliction of emotional distress" or some such.

 

The law is funny that way

 

This thread is going off topic, and I believe that everything that needed to be said has been.

If anyone has any comments specifically about collegehints and its new discussion board, it's appropriate to post here. Otherwise, please take off-topic discussions to private email or to the off-topic board.

Thanks

Chip
Administrator

 

Hi George,

Greetings from Mount Killimanjaro in Tanzania.

Yes, I think so - cannot vouch for it 100%.

Regards,

Len.