My opinion of Rich Douglas’s Dissertation

Been hearing that a lot lately but I am sure it is untrue in all cases.

 

And the statement on surveys is somehow inaccurate??

The kissy faced back slappy criticism was not a comment on surveys but on strange human behavior.

 

Concerning its inaccuracy, last we heard, you were going to seek out some authoritative reference to back up your assertion. What happened?

The only strange human behavior was your characterization of the lack of criticism as “abhorrent,” when, truth be told, you had no way of knowing whether or not it was even worthy of criticism. In other words, all you were doing, for personal reasons all your own, was expressing how great your disappointment was at no one having trashed Dr. Douglas’ dissertation. Strange human behavior, indeed!

 

You've convinced me Gus, it is normal for doctorate level people to say how wonderful a dissertation is without having read it.

 

Why are you all assasinating each other? This "I am right , you are wrong or vice versa" is a disconnect to the thread. What is the gain to anyone in this slama jama?

People, please let's lay to rest this slama jama discussions. Thank you.

 

And if we are all "kissy face back slappy" should CCU gain accreditation, will you consider it "strange human behaviour"?

What we got here isn't Schadenfreude but the reverse: Freudenschade. You have disparaged Union and Douglas at every opportunity. (And, no, I am not a partisan of Union, nor have I yet read Douglas' dissertation.) When folks have challenged your methods or information you have resorted to claiming that you were jesting, or else to unusual language ("kissy face back slappy", z.B.) dismissing as sycophantic or inane the statements of anyone who disagrees with your dislikes.

You chose to enroll in an unaccredited (as of now) school, hoping to parlay its eventual accreditation into an apparently accredited degree. Fine.

You chose to enroll in a doctoral program which does not require a dissertation (!). Fine.

Rich made different choices and achieved his goal. Fine.

Why does this last bother you, or rather, why does it bother you that it doesn't bother others, whose minds you now claim to be able to read?

 

To return this thread to its topic: Rich, would you PM me when your diss is available in some sort of hard copy bound format? (I lose everything else.) Thanks. J.

 

I don’t recall ever having made that argument, Dennis. Nor do I see (after going back and rereading every post in this thread) where anyone that had not read Dr. Douglas’s dissertation stated that it was wonderful.

There were, however, two individuals (that you aptly characterized as “doctorate level people) who stated that they believed that Dr. Douglas would have done a fine job based on the nature of the institution that awarded the degree and Dr. Douglas’ long history of posting on this and other fora.

Your reply was that you found the absence of criticism “abhorrent.” Why is that? What is it that troubles you so? Is the fact that you will not be producing a dissertation in your doctoral program? Is it that you don’t think anyone might believe you would have produced a fine dissertation (if you had been required to so) based solely on the nature of the institution that will one day (hopefully) be awarding you the degree? Or is it instead that many of these “doctorate level people,” would, as they did with Rich, also make certain assumptions concerning your capabilities to produce a quality dissertation based on the quality and accuracy as your postings on this and other fora?

Aside from blatantly currying favor with your bobblehead buddies on other fora, I fail to what your rationale is in attempting to disparage Dr. Douglas and his work at every opportunity.

 

Why do you always have to resort to ad hominem attacks??

I don't recall disparaging Douglas's work.

 

Janko - you need a life other than mine.

 

Didn't I read on a website somewhere that you require prescription lenses.

Quote
"I have no reason to doubt that Rich did a very fine job. I don't have to read his dissertation to adjudge that his dissertation measured up. I simply and strongly believe that it did. Period.

__________________
Ike Okonkwo, PhD

Nova Southeastern University (2003)"

 

Surely you jest, Dr. Ruhl. Is this another one of your giggly things?

Characterizing the lack of criticism (without knowing whether any is justified) as "abhorrent" and those who believe that Dr. Douglas produced a fine dissertation based on the nature of the awarding institution and the standards of quality and accuracy he has exhibited in his posts as "brown-nosers" qualifies as disparagement. You do remember doing both of those things, right? If not, simply reread your posts in this thread.

Would you like to try, as you have done so many times before, to convince us that you weren't serious and that you meant all of this as a joke?

 

As you very well know that the potential for serious vision problems does indeed loom in my future, I sincerely appreciate your sensitivity in (once again) bringing up the issue. You're a prince, Dennis.

I read the same thing you did. The only difference is, of course, being that I have no particular agenda, I understood fully what I read. Where in that quote do you see the word "wonderful?"

Dr. Okonkwo was simply expressing an opinion that, because of his familiarity with Rich, and, I'm sure, the nature of the institution awarding the degree (which includes the caliber of the individuals on the doctoral committee), he had no doubts that Dr. Douglas did a fine job and that his dissertation "measured up." Only among those accustomed to an extremely low level of achievement would "measuring up" be synonymous with "wonderful."

Once again, where do you see such accolades as "wonderful?"

 

I know the moderators will step in soon.

 

Gus - Forgot about your glaucoma. I just noticed that the FAA said you needed glasses and that it might somehow relate to your missing of posts.

I am gone from this thread. Just think of the reaction should I ever criticize the golden boy.