Credibility of Knightsbridge "Faculty" Member Questioned

Oxpecker,

No doubt different terminologies can at times cloud the mutual understanding in any discussion.

The type of faculty you describe would in the UK be on a short-term contract, and not adjunct faculty.

This is the terminology we use, and the definitions I posted are the ones we apply.


Henrik

 

Eloquent, verbose, unresponsive, uninformative, it is a most interesting combination.

So who is part of KU's adjunct faculty? People that applied? People that agreed it might be agreeable to get a KU paycheck? Am I being silly here? Shouldn't it be a simple and obvious thing to understand what a KU adjunct faculty means? Is this really such an ill defined concept? Is there other schools in the world that call people their adjunct faculty when they have never been asked to do anything by the school? Who are the people that we can check on to try to execute Dr. Marainus's suggestion?

I'm beginning to suspect Henrik's hidden agenda is to drive us all insane!

 

Bill,

I have defined what adjunct faculty means here.

If you are incapable of understanding the simplicity of this, perhaps your being driven insane should not be your first worry.

Adjunct faculty have put their skill and abilities at our disposal. They are assigned under specific terms, on the basis of the definitions previously posted.

If 'uninformative' is your assessment of something that you do not understand, I wonder just how much information is wasted on you.

'Misinformative', however, seems to be your agenda, and it would seem one that you will pursue relentlessly.


Henrik

 

Somebody wrote:

> Why don’t you ask Henrik how many dissertations Dr.
> Gunaratna has supervised in, say, the last 12 or 24 months?
> Insist that the answer be a number.

OK.

Dear Henrik,

How many Knightsbridge dissertations has Dr Gunaratna supervised?

-- Mark I.

 

Mark,

I have absolutely no idea how many dissertations Dr Gunaratna has supervised in, say, the last 12 or 24 months. The total number insisted upon, then, I shall estimate as equal to or greater than nought.

Now, if 'somebody' is interested in how many dissertations/theses the gentleman in question has supervised on behalf of Knightsbridge, the number is 0.

It might be useful for 'somebody', and everybody else, to understand that they have no right whatsoever to be made privy to such information, and that it is shared in a sudden spirit of good will to all mankind. Don't know where that came from, must be getting weak in my old age. Perhaps it's just because you actually know how to communicate. Although you did forget to say 'please'!


Henrik

 

So you call adjunct faculty everyone that has applied at KU? Weren't you trying to make fun by saying that people here didn't understadn what an adjunct faculty was? Don't you see that it is "unusual" to call applicants adjunct faculty when they've never been assigned anything to do? Does this have to do with a degree mill facade?

 

Well, Mark, it seems like it’s not in my imagination after all; so, yes, it is you who will have to do better.

Give it time, sport; give it time.

 

Even before I posed the latest question, Henrik had said, "Of the list, some have been external examiners, some programme directors, some supervisors, some tutors, some have been several different things." If I misconstrued "all have been active" as "all have been supervisors", that is my fault, not Henrik's.

There is still no contradiction in Henrik's words above.

 

No contradiction, but nouseful info either. As in all his posts. Henrik is a clever man.

 

You do bear some responsibility for succumbing to Henrik’s subterfuge; however, you did not “miscontrue” anything. Henrik crafts his statements with precision to convey a specific impression, and you simply ascribed the exact meaning to Henrik’s words that he wanted. However, you have no excuse for your gullibility as I warned you not be naïve and fall prey to Henrik’s use of weasel words.

Please don’t be a putz; of couse there is a contradiction. The contradiction is not in the words themselves, Mark, but instead on what Henrik wants you to believe. As I am fluent in millspeak, I tried to translate and point out to you the contradiction. As you do not appear to understand millspeak (or choose to turn a blind eye toward the obvious when engaging in your latest avocation as Devil’s Advocate), you accused me of having an overactive imagination. Don’t you understand the entire purpose behind employing subterfuge, evasion and weasel words? When the truth is exposed as different from the impression originally conveyed, the sleazy author can always point to a different interpretation than the one he or she originally tried to make you believe. Usually this is accompanied by statements inferring that the reader is uninformed, biased, or simply too dense to understand what the author really meant. “Faculty” isn’t faculty; “public” isn’t public; “list” isn’t list; “and everything depends what the meaning of “is” is.

I hope you have learned your lesson. More often than not, when you base your arguments on the statements of someone like Henrik, they will come back to bite you on the ass.

 

Bill,

Applying does not equate to being accepted. I never said that, you did.

I am sure that whichever enterprise you may be associated with does not count as staff all those who ever applied to them for a position, whatever its nature.

All adjunct faculty are vetted by the Academic Board. After this they may, in the extent there is a call, be assigned candidates.

Please refer to my previous mention of your methods and agenda being that of misinformation.

To stay with the lightness of tone of your final sentence, does this have to do with your being dishonest?


Henrik

 

Stanislav,

You shared:
QUOTE
"No contradiction, but nouseful info either. As in all his posts. Henrik is a clever man."
UNQUOTE

First of all, thank you for the compliment. I'm a man. Excellent. Those boyish good looks have been fooling me for years, then.

As for your first sentence, of course some here will not have found my posts useful, as their motivations to keep posting about myself or Knightsbridge appear less than pure, and so what they're hoping to find isn't what they're finding. What can I say, my tender little heart is on the brink of snapping in at least two.

Everything I've shared is perfectly useful for those not biased, those without an agenda, and those who are not by now so incensed with righteous fury that they cannot even understand simple statements.

It is interesting how I am getting personal mail of support from a damn sight more people than are posting at DegreeInfo these days.

Do keep up the compliments, they're getting to me.


Henrik

 

Faculty means someone that works for a school. Adjunct faculty means someone that works for a school but may not work for the school next month. These are what I believe to be the normal definitions. I am sorry that I'm forced to put words in Henrik's mouth. It seems to be the only way to get a definitive statement.

Henrik seems to say that at KU an adjunct faculty can mean instead that it is somone that has never worked for KU and may never work for KU but someone that might work for KU in the future. This is a strange definition in my view. It seems to be a definition of convenience. Similar to the Henrik's definition of list in another thread. A search engine searching over a list and being made available to the public is not making the list publically available. This doesn't make sense either, at least in my view. This is what is known as weasel words or playing word games.

I would be happy to follow Dr. Marianus's suggestion to test the sincerity of KU by investigating the KU advisors. Unfortunately KU keeps secret who the advisors actually are. Mark Israel at one point seemed to argue that this is not true but my guess is that any faculty listed on the website that had any problems uncovered would turn out to not be advisors. This seems to be the pattern, two for two. Is there really any reason for KU to keep this information secret, if KU were a serious academic entity?

Perhaps what we should do is go over the entire list? This would likely become a burden for any one person. However, if enough people are interested perhaps the list could be divided up? This of course assumes that Henrik continues to treat this information as secret. Here's the list of questions that I might think we should ask.

1. What are your academic credentials?
2. Have you worked for KU in any capacity in the past?
3. Have you worked for KU as an advisor?
4. How many KU students have you advised, what is the average length for the degree, the shortest, in your view are generally accepted academic procedures followed?
5. What other universities have you held positions and in what capacity?

I admit that I did Google searches on a half dozen random names but pretty much came up empty, at least from an academic information point of view (not counting teaching martial arts).

 

Henrik, I, for one, have found all your posts extremely useful, as the integrity, honesty, and straightforwardness (or lack thereof) of an owner is mirrored in the institution he or she runs.

Hey, Mark, are you paying attention? Isn’t this the exact behavior I previously described?

You failed to mention, Henrik, that the emails you have been receiving are from individuals who have been banned from DegreeInfo inviting you to join them on another forum. I see that you have joined the other forum, that you were followed immediately by your shill and lapdog, Dr. Marianus, and that both of you have been welcomed with open arms. Don’t forget, however, that I was the first to suggest that your convoluted ideas and comments would be much more accepted on another forum.

 

An interesting Google search

Here's a few interesting Google searches:

"Knighstbridge University" AND adjunct = 11 hits

"Knightsbridge University" AND fraud = 14 hits

"Knightsbridge University" AND fake = 19 hits

"Knightsbridge University" AND mill = 19 hits

 

"incensed with righteous fury"
Oh, dear.