Degreeinformation DL: new forum

I agree with you and have directly spoken to some, and will continue to make my voice heard if people attack or speak ill of John Bear. I was alerted that you had subscribed tha thread that I had logged on to, but then found no message and was told that you had been 'removed' - I know the feeling well. I also agree that you tend to lead with the chin - let's say that you are not a 'flighter'...

Maybe you'll tell us here what you said?

 

I just posted that the comment by Dr. Marianus was gracious regarding John, and that he didn't feel a need to "tangle" with me, which I appreciated. I thanked him, and that was it.

There was nothing in my post to provoke the owner/operator of the board. It was a pre-emptive attack. Too bad.

 

While it is so oh-so-interesting to see how your minions accede to your backchannel directives, Dr. Dr. Dr. French, did you really find it necessary to resort to publicly calling Neil Hayes an “uneducated buffoon” in order to elicit his compliance?

 

OK - So maybe we bury another hatchet as long as it is not in each other's heads?

OK by me, or aren't you up to it Gus?

 

That site seems to be pursuing primarily a bash DegreeInfo all the time strategy thusfar. Hopefully, they can get beyond the thinly-veiled envy and conspiratorial musings about "the Gang" over here and discover a niche that serves some useful purpose--sorry if that offends some who post on both sites, but what I stated is readily apparent to me, a relative newcomer to this with no overriding ax to grind.

 

Now wait a minute, I'm sure I've missed the context here but this does seem likely to be an accurate characterization for someone flaunting bogus academic credentials.

P.S. Welcome back to the forum, Peter French.

 

It is not near as bad as it has been on the other sites like online-college. This thread and other threads here on this site are about the other sites, what is the difference? There is no reason why all of this has to continue, but some people seem to love the conflict on both sides. If people here talk about people there, and people there talk about people here then it is the same damn thing. Let it go!

I do not know who some of the people there, and do not know all of their history here, but I have found most will be nice to you if you are nice to them. The agenda to humiliate the other side is so childish no matter which side you take. I do not know PJ French's history with this site and do not care, but he seems to share the same view that I do that this is all old. I remember when Jimmy Clifton came back on this site he took a lot of abuse, and people made him out to be a shill, liar, etc., but I have found him to be a nice contributor and respectful to others, a lot more so than others. He may have been a jerk before, or he may have been unfairly attacked, but either way let it go!

I can't seem to understand why in the heck some have the agenda to tear down others when this is supposed to be a degree information forum (same with the other forums). I think we should put out the facts about these schools, and if someone still makes the decision to go with the bad schools then they have to live with it, but many do not know about these schools. Many people are turned off by the back and forth, and the attacks from both forums. There is nothing wrong with debate, but all of the personal attacks are OLD. Just let it go!

 

I agree, it should be let go, but from my perspective as a relative newbie (1 month posting), it seems to be an obsession over there, an "oh, by the way" over here--and the venom seems a good site more potent over there as well.

Again, I have no ax to grind, I'm coming at this from an outsider's, somewhat objective perspective.

 

Not every opinion is entitled to respect. Fraud is yet fraud. Intellectual dishonesty should be excoriated for what it is, whenever and wherever encountered. That's basic to scholarship.

 

Some may feel these “personal attacks are OLD,” but just last month my family and I were the victims of vile and despicable acts (not only on the Internet, but also in real life) that crossed the line of criminality and placed us in jeopardy.

Perhaps I would be much more inclined to simply “bury the hatchet” if investigators had not informed me that certain actions against me did indeed cross the threshold of criminality, my family and I were indeed put in jeopardy, and that thanks to the immediate and full cooperation of several individuals and ISPs in the US and abroad (it helps to have friends in high places) it has been determined that these actions were the result of a long-running conspiracy by persons who have now been fully identified.

So, what kind of assurances can I get that, contrary to the agenda, ethics, and character these individuals have displayed for years, all of a sudden, they have, simultaneously and en masse, turned over a new leaf? And, considering the fact that a simple signature on my part would subject these individuals (one certainly, others, perhaps, due to the conspiratorial nature of the charges) to a lengthy and expensive legal process with the certain outcome being public humiliation, disciplinary action on the part of various professional associations, and a severely diminished capacity to provide for themselves and their families, how can I be certain that this newfound "civility" is genuine or long-lasting?

Therefore, before I assent to “burying the hatchet” (especially since only now, for the first time, I too am in possession of one), I need the answers to these questions.

 

That doesn't sound like much fun for you; without naming the perps, what was done to you that nosed over the edge, or was this something that was discussed on this forum before I became a part of it?

 

Gus, you have helped me out by helping me find the courses I am now taking and I appreciate that. I also have changed my mind about some people here, and about the oversight of schools in general. I must say though I think you bring a lot of this on yourself because of the way you have treated others. If someone crossed the line then I hope you prosecute them to the extent of the law. The idiots from online-college tried to post some things about me, but were too stupid to get it right. I think this is kind of stuff is wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. Some of these people are nuts. Anyone who would delight in Mark's situation is the scum of the earth IMO. But, I think you realize before you say Dr. Dr. Dr. to someone that they are not going to take that kindly and you sure did not do it as a sign of respect. I do not even know where PJ French received his PhD's from, but why call him Dr. Dr. Dr. other than to insult him? Why call Neil Hayes duck boy other than to insult him? I think more people will listen if you make a case against a school respectfully.

 

Nosborne:

If someone is coming in promoting a school that is clearly a diploma mill then the school can be discounted with the facts and evidence that we know about, and the person will have to try to make the case that the school is not a diploma mill. If that person cannot make such a case or dispute the facts and evidence then the person will be seen as intellectually dishonest. However, when someone has different views they should not be lumped into a group and called shills, trolls, and academic frauds just like everyone here should not be lumped into a group of RA or no way thinkers that are out to protect the establishment.

I think when people do not treat people with respect they hurt their case. I have less respect for the ones that try to make an ass out of anyone that is on the other side of a debate. People should attack the message rather than the messenger. Rather than convincing someone that a school is a diploma mill or a less than wonderful school many leave hating this site or that site. It is all ridiculous. I just everyone should LET IT GO!

I would like to see everyone to treat everyone else with respect, and if someone sees things differently than you that does not make them your enemy. Listen to them and debate them on message rather than the personal stuff that is what I am trying to get across. I learned from another protected forum that when you post facts and evidence respectfully you win more than you do when you do battle with the ones who take the low road.

 

It would be easier to "let it go" if it wasn't happening in the present. That board, and some of the people who occupy and run it, started off with that stuff without any provocation. This has been the pattern in many places. Before you jump on Gus too hard (and me, for that matter), remember who we're talking about and the behaviors they've displayed. Sometimes, you have to fight back.

I've never seen anyone demonstrate where I've ever launched an unprovoked attack at someone. Please show me where I've "cast the first stone."

"Let it go" is fine. But a criminal who breaks into your house shouldn't be welcomed back in the front door. You might "let it go," but that doesn't mean you'd tolerate his presence (and his B.S.). You'd want your DVD player back first.

 

I am aware in a prepheral way of one sammler matter that you mention emenating from the North, and one of the persons involved - presuming there were more. I was not a part of it, never have been and never will be and in seeking to reason with that person received similar but not as extreme 'medicine', and this was not the first time I was on the receving end. I considered phoning you as to this very matter, but did not as I was not sure it would be benefical to either of us. My ongoing efforts with that person who was also the major adverse contributor in all other unmoderated lists did not lead to it being resolved, but strongly supported its resolution.

I am saying no more here, as it is not the place and I do not need to.

So between us, the hatchet is buried, and in that context neither of us has a hatchet as I am not the person to whom you refer - OK?I am not the person to whom you refer

 

The “way I have treated others” is a fallacy. Some time ago, you accused me (although I can understand why you felt that way) of habitually employing epithets when referring to other members of this forum. However, a quick search of the DegreeInfo archives proved that allegation false. What you fail to take into account, plcscott, is that simply disproving an individual’s cockamamie (and potentially harmful to others) assertions in a public forum is considered a humiliating and frustrating personal attack by some, no matter how respectfully one goes about doing so.

Those that habitually attack me, other members of this forum, and this forum in general generally have followed the same pattern:

1. The individual posts one or more (usually self-serving) averments (usually about a questionable school or accreditor).
   
2. Other members of this forum soundly refute the statement(s).
   
3. The individual posts additional asseverations (typically from further out in left field).
   
4. The individual’s feelings of humiliation, frustration, and victimization increase as his or her paucity of logic or hidden agenda is revealed (once again, however respectfully this is done).
   
5. The individual violates the TOS of this forum and is banned (usually for personal attacks, multiple identities, or shilling).
   
6. The individual blames the member(s) of this forum (frequently me or Rich, but other members as well) that engaged them in discussion (and refuted their arguments) and the DegreeInfo administrators for their plight.
   
7. The individual joins other fora (mostly populated or run by individuals who have also followed this same general outline) where he or she proceeds to join in the obsessive (and frequently ethically questionable) bashing of DegreeInfo and its members.[/list=1]
   The incessant false accusations of “personal attacks” from these individuals serves one, and only one, purpose—to provide a (false) justification for their questionable behavior. Isn't it interesting that, contrary to what they say, so much of their vitriol stems from their inability to post on this forum (where legitimate discussion of distance education takes place)?
   
   
   I wish it were that simple; I take the matter of interfering with or curtailing an individual’s ability to provide for his or her family very seriously. On the other hand, I must also take into account that others or I may be victimized in the future. I will wait and see what kind of assurances, if any, I will be given that these kinds of activities will never again take place before deciding how to proceed. The ball is in their court. They know how to contact me.
   
   
   Keep in mind that we are, more than likely, referring to the same group of individuals. As you have personally experienced, all you have to do is disagree with them or publicly prove them wrong for them to feel justified invading your privacy and mounting vicious personal attacks.
   
   
   I don’t mean it as a sign of respect. If someone feels that it is perfectly acceptable to acquire three degree mill doctorates and to publicly disclose them and otherwise use them when it suits their purposes, then they should be able to accept the fact a fair amount of sarcastic humor and good-natured ribbing comes with the territory. Moreover, unless you are intimately familiar with the history of the relationship between two individuals and what has transpired in the past, you are unable to judge if a comment is innocuous, really out of line, or pales in comparison to what either of them has employed in the past.
   
   If anyone objects to my humor or the way I address him or her, all they have to do is simply ask that I stop or state (as I have done many times in the past myself), "I prefer to be addressed as (or called)..." Anyone except, of course, Uncle Janko, as he will always be "Unc" to me.
   
   
   I have never referred to Neil Hayes as “duck boy.” However, Neil has, in the past, referred to himself as “duck boy.” See how easy it is to succumb to the fallacy of personal attacks by erroneously attributing comments to an individual or taking them out of context?
   
   
   Unfortunately, regardless of the degree of respect (and a search of the archives will reveal that my sarcastic barbs and witticisms are only aimed at well deserving targets), the more eloquent and convincing my arguments are against a school, the more the individuals involved with it consider it a “personal attack” (see the outline above).

 

I am not jumping on anyone. I am just giving my opinion. I think posting personal information on you or Gus and suggesting that people should harass you is WAY over the top. I am just saying it is often hard to get people to look at their own actions, and no matter what you present to them they never see anything they do as wrong. If you and Gus, or James and Dennis take that the wrong way then I am sorry it is just my opinion to "let it go". You are the only ones I really know about in these little battles, and the only ones that do not seem to be able to let it go. I am just making the suggestion, but if you all do not take the suggestion then continue on for now on if that is what you want. It is very subjective IMO as to who starts it and who goes too far, but it is objective to look at who is involved in most of these spats, and that is why I say "let it go" since it is almost always the same people battling or insulting each other no matter which sites you go to. These battles usually have less to do with education or schools than they do with personal prodes. What one considers as humor another considers an insult or vice versa.

I do not know who SLaven or the others are, so I cannot speak to them and do not know that I would want to anyway. Just from watching what was said about Mark Isreal makes me not want to ever communicate with such. I think there is plenty of blame on both sides no matter how much each of us think we do no wrong and most everybody else does. I think Dr. Bear has shown a lot by posting on that forum in a respectful way, and he is now receiving respectful responses in return. It would be nice IMO if others would try to do the same. I am going to *try* to be respectful to everyone, and this is something I decided a while back, but I can only suggest it for others. I have just found the other approach has gotten old!

 

Gus:
I have experienced on a much lesser level that which you described. I was on another forum when a fellow posted describing himself as a seeker of a DL graduate degree, asking about the merits of a particular school. I told him it was unaccredited and was more expensive that several well-respected universities offering the same DL degrees. I suggested a handful of very prestigious universities offering the same degree for the same price or less in the same format, albeit accredited.

He responded with irritation at my suggestions. This surprised me, as I thought I was doing him a favor. I responded a little tartly, but in a contained manner, and I cited pure logic in my response, tried to reason with him. At this point he let the guns blaze, calling me a fraud and a liar, even though the facts were totally on my side. He followed up with a post primarily consisting of lies about me that he'd manufactured out of nothing, for no purpose other than ruining my credibility on the forum--of course, even if you tell a perfect and utter falsehood, half the people will believe it, witness the popularity of tabloid publications.

I didn't realize at the time what I strongly suspect now: he didn't want an honest assessment, he was likely either a shill or matriculating already in that program--which he didn't reveal with his initial post. When I unwittingly didn't give him the answer he wanted, he turned on me, either because I was diminishing his commission potential as that school's sales rep or because I exacerbated his insecurities about his education.

One has to be very careful with these types; as Shakespeare said "He doth protest too much."

 

new forum just like the old forums...hope you don't get fooled again

I agree completely with Gus. Freedom of speech is well and good, but the persons with whom one chooses freely to exercise that freedom are sometimes very bad. One is, I suppose, free to eat faeces, too. Some free choices are wrong and the fact that they are capable of being made does not make them right.

I cannot conceive of any situation in which I should ever meet Rosie Israel, or Gus Sainz for that matter. But if I ever did, I could look them in the eye knowing that I never colluded with those who so hatefully treated them and their families. Nor, even though my own posts are beneath his dignity to parse, would I ever be embarrassed to meet Rich Douglas because I had lent credence by participation to the fora which obsess against him.

I have precious little learning, less health, and no wisdom.
But what honor I have, I intend to keep.

 

Peter:

Based on what I know to be true, much of your message did not make sense. However, as this is still considered an ongoing investigation, I am limited as to what I can publicly divulge.

It seems like, for some reason, you want some kind of corroboration that I know the real identities (not just screen or posting names) of the perpetrators and that I indeed have evidence of a conspiracy.

When I mentioned that one of the individuals could certainly be charged, it was not only because it was he who actually was directly involved in the most egregious and outright criminal activity (truly amazing considering his credentials and line of work, but then again, he thought he was anonymous and perhaps still does), but also because he resides here in the United States and the involvement of law enforcement personnel abroad would not be necessary.

However, working with investigators and extremely cooperative ISPs led to uncovering evidence of the behind-the-scenes involvement of individuals in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Britain (a digital lineup, as it were). Rather than pursue the matter legally in each of the countries where these individuals reside (a needless and cumbersome prospect), I could always simply press charges against them here in the United States, which, of course, would present a real difficulty if they were ever to try to visit the US.

The individuals involved know who they are. What they should not doubt is that I know who they are and have evidence of their activities. The fact that I have not publicly divulged their identities or have yet to take further legal action is testament to my munificence. The ball is clearly in their court. I am not looking to ruin anyone’s life; I am looking for assurances that no one will ever be victimized this way again.