A Sad Day

Bill Huffman in a defense of the recent unfortunate experiment asks: "Is deceit a part of law enforcement?"

The answer is yes. And, had the administrations restricted themselves to this forum, where they are, in fact, the law enforcement, I would agree that it was their right, and perhaps their responsiblity. (Though, I still would not like the tactic.) However, their actions also took place on a.e.d., without, as far as I can tell, the support and authority of Google Groups, who administer, however loosely, a.e.d.

The recent deceptions were more like the 'law enforcement' of degreeinfo going a.e.d. to deliver vigilante justice.

I don't feel I need to discuss this issue endlessly, but I have still not heard a good reason for this debacle. 'Smoking out' spammers seems to be a fairly fruitless effort. If you 'find out' who a spammer is, they need only change their anonymous identity and start again.

Hworth

BTW, I very much enjoy this Forum and am grateful to the administrators for making it available. I am also not going to let this incident stop me from engaging in the substantive discusssions that are had here.

 

While I think the recent deception is dispicable, and don't think the law enforcement analogy is at all relevent, I think it should be pointed out that "google groups" is nothing more than a service that happends to archive A.E.D. They have no more claim to ownership or to administration of the group than you or I do.

 

Minor point of clarification, which seems to be getting lost here:

Admins at degreeinfo did one and only one thing: we honored a request to allow one poster (Peter) to temporarily make posts that were "over the line." We terminated his posting privileges when the posts got overly offensive. (There was one action that was made in error: the temporary suspension of posting privileges for a regular contributor. This was an error made in good faith by one of the admins and not part of any plan, and was rectified within 6 hours of the error being made. The poster has received apologies from us for the incorrect actions.)

Admins did *not* take any organized actions on a.e.d. Individually, I (and, I think, one or two others) responded to posts on a.e.d., but we've been doing that for years, and, speaking for myself, the posts I made in response to the posts of Peter and others were really no different than posts I've made in the past.

I am not attempting to justify anything. Our role in permitting Peter's indiscretions should never have occurred. I am just trying to clarify the actions that were taken.

 

Clarifications received and understood. Chagrins noted. Apologies for involving others unwittingly accepted. Dead horse beaten.

Now, WHAT THE #$@#%*!! IS GOING ON WITH HAWAII!? WOO WOO!!

Rich Douglas, who likes the effect of a little taxpayer money put into enforcement.

 

My analogy was not a good one. It pulled in far too many irrelevancies.

My point was that it appears that the adminstrators of this forum did NOTHING deceitful or dishonest. My point is that I believe that the people insinuating that the adminstrators of this forum have been dishonest or deceitful are overreacting or perhaps are confused on the facts.

Perhaps you might convince me otherwise by presenting what you think was done by an adminstrator that was deceitful or dishonest.

 

Chip and another poster have made fair points about substance. These have already been answered but we can go through them again using Chip's post

Well, at the time you knew these posts were part of an orchestrated attempt to deceive others, Chip. Indeed, you were a central actor in the deception in that, without your acquiescence, this scam could not have been perpetrated. You knew the posts by Peter were not genuine, yet you colluded with him to keep that information from others. Indeed, one contributor was suspended for supporting Peter's bogus actions - .i.e. me. You did not inform me it was all a sham, yet you knew it to be one, and you provided the forum for the deception. In email to me about my suspension, neither you nor any other administrator of degreeinfo.com, or any other participant in this fraud, revealed the truth. You all maintained the fiction that events were genuine. And to complete the circle of complicity, at the end, you patted Peter on the back and restored his posting privileges.

Wouldn't it be then accurate to say that you conspired in full measure, with others, in a deceptive scam? I do not see that there can be any doubt about it.

My goodness, let me rebut that without further ado.

1) At the very least, both you and Peter knew it was a scam.
2) You conspired with Peter in AED bogus flame posts in an effort to further that deception.
3) You are degreeinfo.com's chief administrator.

It is therefore undeniable that at least one degreeinfo.com admin, namely its chief admin, took part in an organized action in AED with the express purpose of deceiving AED subscribers.

Your statement above, "Admins did *not* take any organized actions on a.e.d.", is without merit.

In addition, you have indicated in other statements that other degreeinfo admins and/or moderators were aware of this fraud.

In fact they are very different, Chip, for you knew they formed part of an orchestrated, organized, and planned attempt to deceive both members of this board, and subscribers to AED. That is the difference, and a blatantly obvious one, if I may say so. They were part of a scam in which you were a principal player.

I think the evidence suggests you are trying to minimize your complicity. Above you refer to "Peter's indiscretions", yet neglect to include your own. He might be forgiven for suspecting he will be hung out to dry if the going gets tough.

 

I believe this misses the mark. Since I've been visiting a.e.d. a very common thread is RA versus degree mills type posts. Chip and people posting that RA is the standard for the USA have been doing those same kind of posts from the beginning of time. Calling those posts deceitful is plain ridiculous.

Sorry Lawrie but in my opinion you've blown it out of proportion. I agree that you should not have been banned. I understand how that unfair action has caused you hurt feelings. I sympathize with that part of your position. As for the rest, ....

 

Lawrie - please?

...you've never done anything that didn't please everyone? You had your reasons but some got upset, and/or wouldn't accept that you knew what you were doing? And your wife had a go at you over it, and kept on harping?

There were reasons for what was done, and you have only seen one side of this, the same as there were very admirable reasons why you stuck up for me. People were getting attacked very viciously and personally outside of both a.e.d and degreeinfo. You don't know that and none of us are going to go into the details. Something had to be done. If you were one of the victims that was being looked after, you'd be reacting very differently. Believe me.

Sometimes, however things have to be kept in tight circles. In this instance, there was no option and that was the case.

Was what we did worth it?

Yes it was - and THAT is all you'll ever hear from any of us.

I respect you, and that is evidenced in that I gave you a personal copy of what had been agreed to publish to end this project. What you did may have been done in anger, but it was inexcuseable. However I forgive you, but Chip mightn't forgive me ) but that is OK as I'll thump him next time I meet with him.

Please get over this, and keep the messages. Look back over them in a years time and then tell me what you think.

Maybe you'll feel better if you concentrate on something positive - I hope so anyway.

Enjoy the weekend,

Peter French

 

The evidence is clear. Chip conspired with Peter to post false arguments between them. Chip knew when posting that the purpose of the false argument in AED and in degreeinfo.com was to establish Peter's bona fides in the eyes of the heretics who, it was hoped, would read the posts, befriend Peter and subsequently reveal their identity to him. That is, Chip's and Peter's intent was to, through deception and trickery, fool unsuspecting contributors in to revealing personal information, about themselves, or their views, or about others, they would not reveal to them under other circumstances.

This ruse was so successful that it fooled one hapless contributor into writing:

"Interesting, I thought that Mr. French was just a customer. I didn't realize he'd graduated to swindler!"

 

What did I do? Repeat Chip's excuses after he published them?

In receiving the news that the whole affair was a scam, I had a choice of going public and informing other victims or suppressing the information, and, in so doing, become an accessory in the continuing deception.

While that email may have been private, it was a communication revealing an ongoing conspiracy to defraud. I am not being dramatic here, but accurate. You in your collective actions sought to persuade others to give up their legal right to privacy by trickery and deception. Or put another way, attempted to defraud them.

I had an ethical dilemma: go public, and infringe the privacy of the fraudsters; or keep quite and allow innocent people to be further harmed by this scam.

I certainly would not want to be tarred with the same brush as those involved, as may have been the case had I failed to inform others of this ridiculous scheme, immediately it became known to me.

As it happens, by the time I mulled it over, and as the AED and degreeinfo.com date stamps clearly indicate, the substance of the email in question HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE PUBLIC BY CHIP prior to my reiteration of the text.

So, in the end, it turned out that there was no need of material violation by me of even the scamsters privacy. You lot had already spilled the beans.

It might prove salutary for you to compare your current concern for your own privacy, with the lack of concern you displayed for the privacy of others, in the premeditated planning and execution of this farcical deception. The admonition to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, comes to mind here.

 

My privacy is NOT an issue. You read me wrong.

But read this - you obviously want the last say, and will prattle on until the world ends. Go for it....

Write what you wish - I have done all that i can to placate you but you would rather keep feeling sorry for yourself. As I don't want to spoil your party, I'll leave you to enjoy it with yourself and your shaddow.

Write what you wish - feel free, as I wont be opening this heading again.

You must have some Irish in you as we secretly welcome bad luck as it gives us a chance to feel glum. Happy moping.

Peter French

 

Yes, well, neither this self-indulgent outburst nor your prior platitudes, bromides or derision, alter the facts one whit. No amount of bluster will make your deception
less reprehensible. Your problem does not appear to be that you did what you did, but rather that you are being held to public account for doing it.

Along with your cohorts, you broke our trust, Peter, and you show no remorse. Instead, you resort to this unseemly baiting of one who supported you. I suppose it is all a question of character, yet I am still disappointed.