Douglas Dissertation Available from UMI

Holy Moly!

His record remains intact? Clearly I've been gone for a while. People have records now?

What on God's Green Earth does that mean, Gus? Have you been building a file on Dennis? Or did you simply means he remains in good standing? And if that is the case -- in good standing with whom?

Say it isn't so, Gus. Say you aren't building files on people. That I've simply misunderstood your statement.

And what did you mean by take action?

 

I'm afraid it is so, Quinn. Much like the secret FBI files on John Lennon and other public figures in the 60-70's, Gus is keeping tabs on the Distance Learning community. Its sad I know, but those who are blazing the trail of DL must be prepared to make sacrifices, eh?

 

Just in case one of us ever runs for president or prime minister, I guess.

Paging J. Edgar and Senator McCarthy.

 

I think that Gus is right. Dennis makes himself a topic of this forum in order to disrupt DegreeInfo. He's admitted that he's made posts just to incite and infuriate members of the forum. Everyone else please ignore Dennis. He's been exposed as a troll long ago. He rarely contributes anything positive. I know that I've let him get me bothered. I'll try to do better. He's just a troll that frequently fabricates nonsense just to incite and bother people.

 

What has changed? Haven’t people always had records, Quinn?

Surely you jest, Quinn. As a prolific author I shouldn’t have to explain such a simple term as “record” to you. Oh well, although I believe you are, once again, playing the role of agent provocateur (I'm sure someone will take your bait), I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a “record” is defined as, “An account, as of information or facts, set down especially in writing as a means of preserving knowledge.” In other words, everything we write on a public forum is part of our “records.”

There is no need for me to build a file on anyone, Quinn. The search functions of most forums do an admirable job of that.

What I meant is that Dennis has a record (see definition above) of not posting anything of substance concerning distance education or contributive to civil discourse. That is why I stated that his bringing up an important point was inadvertent (which it was).

I don’t purposely build a file on anyone, Quinn, but I have been cursed with a memory that forgets very little of what I see, hear, or read. For example, in another thread, you commented of the fact that some psycho stalked you simply because you called him a “vapor.” The record shows, however, that you actually called him or her a “cowardly vapor” AND a “jackass.”

Personally, I didn’t mean anything by “take action;” I simply broached the subject. I was hoping that the members of this forum would, instead of ascribing some kind of nefarious motivations to my comments or resorting to ad hominem attacks, stay on topic, respond to the specific issues raised, and chime in with their opinions. In fact, that’s why most of what I wrote was questions.

My personally opinion, however, is that the actions a community can take range from turning a blind eye to egregious behavior to ignoring or ostracizing an errant member to outright banning by the moderators. What do you think? Should a community take any kind of action in these kinds of situations? If so, what do you advise?

 

This whole sub-topic brings to mind something that's happened recently on a usenet group (sci.math).

Someone who belongs to one of the associations I also belong to had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then, as the result of someone who sent in a complaint to the journal, the paper was pulled after publication.

Well, pulling a paper after publication is a no-no in academic publishing. It's just not supposed to happen. Period. If someone feels that a paper has wrong results, a correction should be published in the following number. Papers just aren't pulled after the fact.

The situation was so egregious that I spoke up in defense of the person who had the paper pulled, explaining that I understood why he was angry at the situation. (I had been privy to some of the exchanges that had occurred between the publisher and the author -- on another, closed/private list. I had a somewhat different perspective than those on sci.math did.)

Well, anyway, the person in question had a long history with sci.math, and had already been labeled a troll there.

Thing is -- on the list he and I both participate on -- this person never attacked, trolled, or behaved in any way that was out of line. The list I had experienced the person on is closed -- members of the association only. So, I made it clear that I had a totally different take on the person in question.

Well, oh boy did I ever take heat on sci.math for standing up in this fellow's defense. I took it straight up the ying-yang. Still can't sit down the same.

It was no longer about whether or not is was ethical to pull a paper after publication. It was about position and personality. The issue at hand got totally lost up in the political stances and personalities of those concerned.

Dennis Ruhl, in my opinion, is Canadian, eh.

Canadians are peculiar in that many of us spell like Americans, but we are not Americans.

We tend not to sue people, and we absolutely cringe about keeping tabs on people ("records"). Our humor is dry. We, somewhat like the Aussies, are "born to stir". We try not to take things too personally. If someone trips in our front yard, we don't expect to be sued -- we go out and help them, and apologize for leaving the watering hose unwrapped.

If we trip on someone's water hose, we cuss and curse like lumberjacks and the first thing out of our mouths is probably, "I didn't see that one coming, eh!" (which translates in French to something that sounds like we've just come from Church and drank from the Holy Grail).

We vote for politicians we know are lying through their teeth and who are definitely going to raise our taxes until we can't afford to remember why we voted at all. But we keep on voting them in -- especially the ones with enough balls to stand up against threats to our national sovereignty. (Which is odd -- because one of the parties that used to be Her Majestiy's Loyal Opposition in fact had a strong separatist stance.)

A curious mix, we Canadians.

 

Thank you for the (not so) veiled ad hominem attack, Quinn. Should I be flattered that a no less illustrious a personage than Quinn Tyler Jackson deemed me worthy of a flame?

Apparently you did not understand my reference to Dr. Kavanagh. DegreeInfo member Earon Kavanagh is pursuing a doctorate in Social Constructionism from Tilburg University. I believe the issues I broached are of specific interest to him.

 

Thanks for clarifying that, Gus.

Yeah -- and I stand by the "cowardly" part -- although "jackass" was uncalled for. I lost my temper with that one.

Anonymous stirrers are cowards who accept no responsibility for their actions. I would have much rather have been harassed by someone with some good old fashioned brass ones. (Testes or ovaries.)

Agent provacateur. God that sounds so damned sexy. But no -- as I also said in another thread I was brought up to question. Question even myself. And I do -- often.

 

Ad hominem schmominem.

I attacked a practice, not a person. Unless Hoover and McCarthy post here.

 

You have never been more eloquent or revealing of your true feeelings.

There was no need, nor did you in any way, attack a practice that most rational individuals find abhorrent. By paraphrasing me and attaching your comments to a response to a post that, with a callous disregard for the truth, mischaracterized my intentions and actions (either that, or you don't know Russell, the DL Scholar, like I do), what you did, in an uncharacteristically inept way, was attempt to ascribe those practices to me.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose ...

 

OK, everybody back to their corners........ this thread sould be closed any second now.

 

It's OK -- I know when to back out without having to be moderated out.

Gus -- I'm sorry you feel I attacked your person. That was not my intention.

Others here already know my views on record-keeping, outing, et cetera. It was my intention to speak out against that -- not against you, the person.

Moderators -- I'll leave of my own accord.

All best wishes to everyone here.

Cheers.

 

Actually, those familiar with my posting history would immediately recognize the post was neither pro/con for Dennis, Quinn or Gus. It was merely to inject a bit of humor. Would anyone seriously believe that Gus was accumulating information on the DL subculture? I think not!

 

Wait a minute! Are you actually proffering your own posting record as a defense?

Actually, Russell, you were correct the first time. For years I have maintained extensive records in the form of articles, links, files, copies of Web sites, reference books, and databases on schools, degree mills, affiliations, etc. Although I don’t purposely create or maintain records on individuals, the aforementioned records do contain the relevant personal associations.

For example, did you know that on April 6, 2004, when I commented on the fact that Claremont University’s fraudulent use of my name to spoof an email address for the administrative contact for the registration of their Web site was a tacit admission that they were indeed a degree mill, it was changed in a matter of days? Did you know that, by April 9, 2004, although they kept the same physical address, the Administrator’s name was changed from Asaram Borude to Sunil Vaswani and the spoofed email adress was dropped (the field was left blank)? Did you know that Vaswani is/was, as Chip put it, Sheila Danzig’s Web development guy in India (he was the technical contact for ceugraduate.com, the Web site that degree.com shifted all of its pages to when the stuff hit the fan)? Do you realize that all of this contributes to proving that Sheila Danzig, St. Regis University, Claremont University and Knightsbridge University are all inextricably linked?

Records (along with Art, which is a form of record), in many ways are what separate us from the lower creatures on the planet. Without written or oral histories there would be no culture (or as you put it, subculture). Civilization, as we know it, began with record keeping.

Yes, I keep records, and unashamedly so. And I do understand how upsetting it is to my detractors that, precisely because of these records, I can back up and provide evidence for everything I claim and state.

 

Of course not.

I'm reminded of that terrific series of Warner Brothers cartoons with the coyote and the sheepdog. They would greet each other cordially at the beginning of the day, clock in, wait for the whistle to blow, beat the crap out of each other, then clock out at the end of the day, wishing each other good-bye. It was funny because it was absurd: of course these two should hate each other away from the "job," but they absurdly separate the two.

It doesn't work that way in real life. If someone at work did something to me that was really awful, I'm not so sure I'd go out for a drink with that person afterwards. Similarly, Dennis' vile behavior towards me elsewhere--not that it's much better here--certainly should be taken into account. It's not some other person; it's still Dennis. If he's disgusting somewhere else, he's disgusting here; he just doesn't get to show as much of it.

 

I too keep records (articles, files, web sites, etc..), Gus, although in a different discipline. My interest in distance learning is somewhat extracurricular, so my archives in this area are not as exhaustive. To associate via this forum with the echalon of DL is a delight.

 

My posting is pretty much consistent across all forums. My opinions are a bit more in line with those elsewhere, where you are banned for aggressive and disruptive behavior.

The item that was posted here from elsewhere merely employs certain figures of speech to reflect many peoples perception of the online relationship between your and Rich's posts. And it's hilarious to boot.

You were previously so paranoid of nasty degree mill people and were so afraid to have personal info, including education, posted so as to protect yourself. Since your life story has been printed elsewhere, I notice you have shifted the focus of your attack onto individuals living at least 5,000 km away. What happened to the degree mill critic?

 

Sorry, but the one who throws the first punch cannot claim to have been attacked. And you always, ALWAYS start these things. Examine this thread...who was it that made the off-topic post with sleazy innuendo? You. As always, you.

 

Your myopia is showing Rich. I better end it there or someone else will be ticked.

 

Yeah, this is the point where some one says something like, "Okay you guys...." But that ignores that these things are always started by you. In the present situation, a few trolls on other boards accused me of somehow hiding my dissertation from publication. Despite the observable facts, you repeat it as if it true. Of course, I object and, further, object to your behavior.

Try "insight" instead of "incite" sometime. Or go away. I'll ignore your petty comments placed on other fora, but will fight back here.