Degreeinformation DL: new forum

I prefer to be addressed as:

• Ming the Merciless--Emperor of Planet Mongo

 

Done. It is, however, a shame; Gertox Peckerpotgieter did have such a nice ring to it.

 

You should have used alliteration, to wit:

Merciless Ming--Elysium Empire Emperor.

 

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to “let it go” as long as I get assurances that no one will be victimized again. Is this unreasonable?

As a martial arts practitioner, plcscott, I don’t have to tell you that, when sparring, there is no comparison between an opponent’s well-placed hit (however much it hurts both your body and your pride) and intentionally targeting below the belt. There is nothing subjective about injurious or criminal activity. You are entitled to your opinion, but as you readily admit, they are based on incomplete information.

I, on the other hand, do know who SLaven is and who the other individuals are as well. Moreover, I have had lengthy telephone conversations with SLaven and have received assurances that he has permanently ceased his injurious activities (you’ll notice that since my having contacted him, they have indeed ceased).

You’ll also notice that I did not expose him or publicly reveal his identity and private information. I simply contacted him privately and requested that he provide me with assurances that the activities and behaviors that were injurious to others would cease. This is not about ego or one-upmanship; real people are getting hurt. Moreover, SLaven (also known as the aed spammer and numerous other aliases) was not the perpetrator of the latest attack on my family. I know who was involved, who made which Internet posts, and the extent of the conspiracy; their IP addresses have been positively confirmed.

Personally, I don’t care about threats, immature insults, or what anyone says about me. However, if you put my family in harms way, if you interfere with my ability to provide for them, then I am going to insist on assurances that it never take place again. My other alternative is to personally take measures to ensure that it doesn’t. Is this unreasonable?

Dr. Bear has his own reasons for posting on that forum.

There is no “approach.” Here, in sharp contrast to what we have just witnessed taking place on other fora, there are no talking points or backchannel directives as to how to behave and how to treat people.

Perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche said it best when he lamented, “It is difficult to live with people because it is so difficult to be silent." It is quite possible, however, that some individuals are about to discover what Mark Twain meant when he said, "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way."

 

Posted by Gus:

Good. I do believe in an offensive form of defense, and the smallest distance between two points is a straight line. It is good that you made direct contact. Maybe you should make some phone calls to others. I do not know the story, and if you wish to keep it quiet then that is ok, but I can only comment on what I see on these forums. If others have done something criminal to you then I think you should hit back hard since that is way over the line. However, I also think that everyone including you should look in the mirror to see if they could handle things better. Again, this is just my opinion.

I am sure you have heard the term GOJU. If you know what that means I am just saying lighten up on the GO and have a little more JU.

 

I know what you meant, but bear in mind that Miyagi Sensei (founder of Goju Ryu) espoused that "ju" or softness and gentleness comes from "go" or hardness and strength of character. As such, I cannot think of a greater example of “ju” than me giving those who attacked my family and me the opportunity to apologize and provide assurances that they will never again victimize anyone in such a manner. The alternative is for me to provide them with what I consider a good example of “go.”

 

I hear ya. I am just expressing opinion.

 

Hmm since degreeinfo is copy righted (says so on the bottom of the page) has Chip or anyone thought of talking to James about infringing on the name?

 

Your restraint in this matter is clearly substantial. I suppose that it remains to be seen if it is admirable. I hope it is.
There are certain rules, laws, conventions, what have you, that apply to living in any society. A willingness to subscribe to those conventions is a decent definition of "civil behavior." These people, by their actions, place themselves outside civil society. They essentially refuse to subscribe to these conventions. So what is to be done?
I know many people who live on the wrong side of that line. In general, they will not stop until they are stopped. I hope you have stopped them. If not, I hope you do. Thanks,
Jack

 

Please give me more credit than that, please.

I said that I know part of what you are referring to, as I was contacted by a person who phoned you, and took issue with him. I know the identity of this person and have for some time, and do not seek/need corroboration, but he chose not to see reason whilst engaging in prolific contributions at 2 sites.

My main point is to make it clear to the readers here that I am NOT the person or one of the parties to this, never have been and never will be, as I am asking you if you will bury the hatchet in my case.

Will you?

 

Hey Peter, I got an email saying you tried to PM me and my box was full. I only had five messages in it so I don't understand.

You can use my regular email at [email protected] if you want to contact me in the future.

Take care, friend.

 

It is easy to blame all parties and just wish it all away. It would be brave, however, to take a stance against appalling behavior. But that's you're choice. In the meantime, perhaps you could "let it go."

 

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

I must have communicated poorly. I fail to parse your posts not because they're beneath me, but because they're normally over my head.

 

"Candygram for Mongo. Candygram for Mongo." Oh, wait, wrong Mongo. Sorry.

 

Credit is given, Peter, where credit is due.

I have known the identity of the person you (not me) are referring to (SLaven and numerous other aliases) for many years. I had communicated with him privately many years ago, but I only contacted him recently by telephone when I thought his posts were getting completely out of hand. Let me make this clear: he is not the person that publicly perpetrated the latest attack on my family, and as such, I have identified him to no one. Moreover, the attack occurred after he gave me assurances that his injurious posts would cease, and I have no reason to believe he has reneged on his promises. It would behoove you to stop trying to implicate him in the last (and most egregious) public attack against my family and me.

Now, the individual who did publicly perpetrate the latest attack on my family, the one who crossed the line of criminality, may believe he is still anonymous, but I assure you he is not. Posting through a Web site that concealed identities and IP addresses was a good idea; posting through one whose servers and corporate owners are located in Florida was not. Posting the message once was stupid; posting it three times was even stupider as it only adds additional counts to the indictment. And I won’t even delve into the issue of how this individual’s educational background completely deprives him of the ability to plead ignorance as to the severity and impact of his actions.

However, I don’t want to minimize the importance of what has been, for some time, transpiring behind the scenes. I have evidence that a conspiracy existed to cause my family and me harm long before this latest public action was taken.

It seems, Peter, that you still have doubts as to the extent of my knowledge and the evidence I have in hand. Before I give you my answer, I believe it would be advisable for you to contact me privately.

 

Peter:

I have sent you a private message with my email address and telephone number.

 

Check your email.

I have to work out if it is dark or dusk at your end and then I'll phone you.

 

For the past couple of years, Degreeinfo has been a good source for "bleeding edge" information about what is happening in distance learning. An example is Bruce's (Bruboy) recent post on the Sloan Consortium's distance learning survey. This is a useful document for me. Many other thoughtful users have made the results of their searching available to the rest of us.

I have visited Degreeinformation (as I did with online-degree, collegehints, distancedegree, etc.). I will continue to monitor it to see whether there is anything useful that cannot also be had on Degreeinfo or whether, like the aforemention three dead fora, it is mainly an excuse for people to attack John Bear, Rich Douglas, the "Gang" or delight in the tragic accident of Mark Israel.

The fact that the forum is named "Degreeinfomation" is obviously a way to capitalize on the popularity and audience of Degreeinfo. It's difficult not to draw a parallel with the marketing strtategies of University of Berkeley, Thomas A. Edison College or La Salle University, each named after similar-sounding established institutions.

If Degreeinformation lives up to the goal stated by several posters, that is to provide a forum for the discussion of distance learning issues and the dissemination of information that is, somehow, distinct from what can be found at Degreeinfo, then it will be a welcome resource for those of us who make our living in the distance learning world and others who are interested in distance learning. If Degreeinformation develoves into jsut another anti-Degreeinfo, anti-John Bear, anti-Rich Douglas rant, then it will die the same death as the other fora. Anti-____ is not a solid enough foundation to sustain the interest of enough people to make an online forum successful.

So far, I do not see a tremendous amount of substance in Degreeinformation; however, it is a new forum, and there is room for voices outside of Degreeinfo, so we'll see...

Tony Piña
Northeastern Illinois University

 

I do see a nice thread about allowing Gus and me to post, with almost all the posts in the thread being quite civil and open to it. (Except the board's owner, who was negative.)

It's his board; he can do anything he wants with it (within the law--we've seen the results of allowing too much nonsense). But when he pre-emptively bans people--especially people who've violated TOS's nowhere else--it reflects on him, and the board he runs.

I was interested in seeing if these reformed folks could actually engage in facts about distance learning contrary to their hopes. Alas, not. But if James (of "kf5k" fame here) decides differently, I'll give it a try, and stay as long as it doesn't become AED-like. And thanks to Dr. Marianus, Dennis, and Peter French, among others, for civil things stated.