Is it necessary to lock a discussion

Hmmm. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I didn't see that coming.:eek1:

 

But I really will, honestly, and it'll be disappointing to anyone who thinks I'm interesting, because I'm not--am an academic mediocrity, a plodder. But honest-to-goodness, I've laid out what credentials I have and will be glad to reveal my name which would allow anyone to verify the mediocrity, so long as Jan reveals his/her credentials and name. Simple as that. Though nothing I've done is all that impressive (e.g., the fellow an office over had more peer-reviewed articles published in his first year than I've had in the last six), nonetheless, what little I have hasn't come easy and I resent an absolute unknown such as Jan firing shots across my bow and the bows of those here who are a good sight more impressive, such as those who've written multiple books on DL.

The only thing I'd request is that people wouldn't go to my dean or department chair with some of the more acerbic posts I've written in the expectation of anonymity, as being an untenured academic, it's not like I have much pull or immunity from getting my butt fired.

 

Some days, DI really feels like Middle school.

 

Frankly I don't see any upside in it for you at all FT. Mucho risko. I think it prudent to stop this game of chicken.

 

couldn't agree more

 

You're probably right, Novadar, but at the same time, I just wonder if Jan's up to revealing who he or she is and what his or her credentials are that give him or her the right to brush aside, with a casual swipe, the views of those who've made this DL pedagogy and accreditation a major work of their lives, and there are quite a few here who have a good sight more skin in this game than me.

 

Crap. Am I acting like a 12 year old? I never know until my wife tells me.

 

Yeah, but how they really go about it is more in line with this forum.

 

I'm afraid that I agree here. The fact that we're still referring to Jan in a "he or she" context, and that Jan hasn't even revealed his or her gender (not that it would matter with regard to credibility, or lack thereof), indicates that Jan will be unlikely to reveal anything when it comes to any credentials.

As for revealing your own, or any other indication of your identity, to anyone, go over to DLT and look at what has been done to George Gollin and his family over the years. George has pretty much dropped off of the academic forum scene, and I can fully understand why. It only takes one psychotic whack job to ruin a person's life or career, and the academic Internet has its share of such whack jobs.

FTF, your credibility has been well established here, with or without your being public in terms of your actual identity. Jan could come out of the closet in terms of identity or credentials today, but it is unlikely that he or she would establish any credibility at all.

Now make yourself a cup of nice hot chocolate and get a good night's sleep.

 

Angeldork Humpabird. I used to be a singer.

Your turn.

 

The people who are not anonymous do bring credibility to DI. If everyone was behind a pseudonym then the TOS may not be strong enough to have a cohesive group of people contributing everyday. For example we do missed Rich Douglas.

Many of the posters who used pseudonyms are known by other members so there is also that other level of respect. However, it is not necessary to provide ones name in order to make meaningful contributions.

I must admit one has to be brave to used his/her real name on DI. Those are the people who take the hits, legal and financial, for us. So I show reverence to them.
Nevertheless, I do enjoy when a newbie take on the establishment. It is good for DI. Eventually, everything settled to its natural equilibrium. Few newbies will stick around and earned their dues, or it most cases they moved on.

 

They needn't be psychotic to be without scruples. You can be undermined without ever knowing how it happened. Why be reckless?

 

Here's an interesting opinion

5 Reasons to Blog Anonymously (and 5 Reasons Not To)

 

"It used to be impossible to run a business anonymously. Sure, some authors could pull it off, but if you worked at an office, what were you supposed to do?"

That's not quite true. You can use an alternate name for business purposes if the purposes are legal.

I've seen people with difficult names use a shortened version, ad hoc.

 

Feels like middle school? You are being very kind. It's more akin to the behavior and acting out behavior one perceives amongst first graders!

 

I don't care who you are or what your CV looks like. Here on Degreeinfo we are all just words on a screen, nothing more. If you expect to win my interest and my respect, you need to do it through your posts. You need to be making posts that are thoughtful, informative and persuasive. (It helps to be friendly and humane too.) If you think that you know more than the rest of us about some subject of discussion, you need to put your assumed expertise to work by educating us about what your beliefs are and your reasons for holding them. Just bragging that you are a professor doesn't impress at all. Teaching us something interesting and/or useful very well might.

What do you imagine that would accomplish? Stop posturing. Nobody here should be making arguments from personal authority.

This is basically a student-oriented board. It's about discussing distance learning programs from the point of view of people who are considering enrolling in them. There's no expectation that only university professors can have opinions on programs' credibility and suitability. If there was, then it would eliminate the value of the board for most of its participants.

If you want to make better informed posts than the rest of us, please do. But if you just want other people to defer to your assumed authority, that's unlikely to happen. (And for the health of the board, it probably shouldn't.)

 

Steve,

No, I did not know it, but I'm glad to take your word for it that you had no intention of denigrating Jan for posting anonymously. It's all too easy for me to misunderstand from the outside when it's couched in inflammatory rhetoric like this though:

Very Ciceronian!


Regarding the missing faculty page at NWU,

I think that offering low cost or free education is a commendable goal, and I wish you luck with helping your students. I can see how from a marketing perspective your decision to leave your name off of NWU might make a certain sort of sense, but I really do think that it's less a marketing issue than a disclosure one, and hence one that raises a red flag. You don't owe anything to me or any other poster who disagrees with you on an internet forum, but I imagine I won't be the only observer who sees the lack of identifiable faculty or administration that way, so I encourage you to minimize challenges by removing the potential obstacle now.

 

Kizmet, yeah, FTFaculty will show me his vitae, workplace and name if I show mine, just as he offered a "detente" between us (when in fact it was FTF who was doing the personal attacking), but immediately, without a realistic basis, recommenced a grossly out of proportion ad hominem assault against me!

There is a premise, that frequently holds true, that one of the most reliable predictors of an individual's future behavior and conduct is their most recent pattern of behavior. Click!

 

Uh, Heirophant, I posted my credentials (which again, are not particularly impressive for State U academia) in response to the following post from Jan:

Yo, virtual savant. You demanded that I present evidence of papers and books that I wrote relating to distance education , but when asked that you do the same, as well as revealing your actual name, you attempt to deflect my request with your typical pompous and unconfirmed bull crap.

If you don't comply with this request and think that your arrogant and hostile belittling comments will win over other posters, think again! Your credibility, which is already highly questionable, will be kaput if you don't come forth with your alleged accomplishments.

I was responding to Jan there, not trying to posture so much as giving a response to a specific demand which was made in a darned rude way. I revealed everything he'd demanded except for my actual name. And so now, apparently not having read the post to which I was responding, you hammer me for "posturing"? Please, that's not fair.