Columbia Pacific University

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Garp, Jul 4, 2020.

  1. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Takes on a different tone? Not to me. I'm perfectly aware of the differences between individuals here - and I respect them. But they're not important to the joke. We're suspending reality here, for the purposes of humor. Doesn't matter, the sexual orientation of either real-life person - least of all for the sake of a movie. A gay actor can play a straight role - or vice-versa. And it's perfectly OK for either to cross the gender line, too. Remember Robin Williams - Mrs. Doubtfire.

    Junior, I think you're making a big thing here...certainly I don't think anyone is dissing either of our protagonists re: their orientations. I think everyone here knows better. If not, they can leave. Now.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  2. JBjunior

    JBjunior Active Member

    You really latched on to the made for TV movie part didn't you? The implication is that there is "tension" in the relationship and love between them will grow to be something so wonderful that it needs to be memorialized on television. Garp wasn't giving you an early read of the screenplay.

    Everything else you made outrageous assumptions about, including "making a big thing." Sit back in your comfy chair and watch another movie.
  3. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I still like to think (and hope) that - in a humorous manner - that was exactly what Garp was doing - a jest about an imaginary scenario. And, however outrageous it might appear to you, I did think you were doing what I said - although, on reflection, it could have been done inadvertently. Since "making a big thing" might not have been your original intention, (I can't read minds) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - and even retract it: There, done.

    In fact, completely done - with you, at least. I don't like your assumptions. Any of them. Best we stay away from each other.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yes, I am that. But that's not what is revolting about the concept. I've been a target of that lunatic for more than two decades now. I've never criticized his occupation (although other have), his sexuality (although others have), his self-published book (though others have), or myriad other things. I have no idea why he remains obsessed with me. It used to bother me, but not anymore. Now I just find him ridiculous. And irrelevant.
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    That's what John Bear told me once after meeting Steve his one and only time. Steve was mild and reserved and not at all the flaming troll he is here. I believe him.
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Sometimes we clash with people initially, then find ourselves bonding because of a shared passion for something or because there's more to agree than disagree about, or whatever. It's an absurd idea.
  7. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I have to agree with you, Rich. It is absurd - in fact, at the outset I immediately connected the idea in my mind with "theatre of the absurd." One of my working titles was "Waiting for Levicoff." Best if I can the whole notion, now. There: done with that, too. We'll no doubt hear from each other and that'll be good. OK if I hear from Steve, too.

    I used to like it better when he crossed the country and weighed in from whatever truck stop had WiFi and regaled us with the latest musical theatre performances in the Midwest. Occasionally, he'd trash a mill or two - but they were mills - and Steve knew all the good stories about them. Maybe these days he needs a project - he has the intellect and energy, I have no doubt. Perhaps a second doctorate, maybe one in the Social Sciences. :)

    At any rate - I assure you, no more absurd scenarios from yours truly. I like you too much for any more of that. Honest. And I like Steve too. ... that's allowed, isn't it?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  8. Garp

    Garp Active Member

    You are correct sir, it was humor and I know both of their situations (as well as anyone can on a board). No derision at all.
    Johann likes this.
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I have no criticisms.
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Now that things have simmered down, let me reiterate something I've posted many, many times, and that is my very thin connection to CPU. (Something Dr Levicoff would NOT even know about if I had not posted it those many times!)

    When I asked John Bear to join my committee, I didn't know him. Frankly, I treated him like a celebrity and assumed he'd never do it. But he agreed. When I sent my first request to him, I asked him if he could refer me to someone, thinking he (Bear) wouldn't. He suggested Crews. I contacted him and he agreed, too.

    I met Dick Crews one time, at the meeting where we (my committee) approved my learning agreement. He was a most agreeable fellow. But by the time I resumed my studies he was retired, so I replaced him on the committee. That's it. I never worked for CPU, never met or corresponded with anyone there, had no connection whatsoever to it. I'm not sure what Steve thinks I'm supposed to disclose!

    I've known John Bear since that request in 1986. We've worked on things together (the military always seemed to get in the way) and have kept a steady communication. I have been a guest of his many times, and he mine. I consider him a friend. Yet I don't disclose this every time I refer to him, quote him, or mention him in any way. For some reason, Steve never gets jacked up about that!

    As John Bear noted in his guides (whoops, there I go again!), I've done work with several universities over my career. In no way has that work ever influenced or altered anything I've ever had to say about any of them. So there. ;)
    SteveFoerster and Maniac Craniac like this.

Share This Page