No Balls

And the correct number would be, what? Seven?

 

Well, the main point is that it shouldn't be essentially the same for everyone, regardless of the extent of prior learning.

 

I was wrong.

When I first took Dennis to task about the bad things on the other fora, especially onlinecollege, I thought that he was showing a certain timidity and craving for esteem by failing to criticize the brutish things that were said, inter alia, about Mark Israel and the outright lies (the 20-year prison thing, for example) about John Bear and the attempts to harass/threaten Gus Sainz and his family.

I was wrong.

I apologize to Dennis Ruhl openly, publicly, and on the record.

Earlier in this thread, referring to the statements on the other fora, Dennis said:

"Anything said was pretty subtle and probably true."

I was wrong.

Dennis was not afraid to speak out. Dennis delighted in what was said.

I was wrong.

What Dennis is, I cannot express consistently with the TOS.

I will no longer regard any post Dennis makes on this board as having any intent to benefit distance education in any way. If he offers advice or makes intelligent comments, I will regard these as camouflage and subterfuge. His endless ad hominem attacks in this forum I regard as craven, base, and cowardly. His attempts to laugh them off, to claim that he doesn't understand when criticized, and his frequent statements that the rest of us are too stupid to understand his virtue and his sense of humor; these I regard as contemptible. All this I will regard henceforth as an Unding, a nullity, deserving no response of any kind.

I can think of other posters who, when called to moral account, by all appearances at length took stock and reconsidered. I applaud them for their shift to constructive and gentlemanly participation. I am glad that they have put the interests of distance learning ahead of other agendas they at one time favoured. I am happy to have them as colleagues and fellow-posters on this board, and wish them well in every regard.

The contrast is unmistakable, perhaps indelible.

Enough said.

Mit brennender Sorge,

Janko

 

For me, the issue with DL online discussion forums is whether they are a source of useful information for my professional work in instructional technology and distance learning. Although Degreeinfo tends to be a hodgepodge of things both DL and non-DL, the people here include some of the most up-to-date and well-informed in the area of distance learning. People here post articles from sources arond the globe, monitor the latest happenings at DL instutions and those government and accrediting agencies that deal with them. Even with our occassional side visits into political and religious issues, I can be assured of receiving some good current data on distance learning.

My visits to forums such as Online College Info and CollegeHints (and the late DistanceDegree) tended to be disappointing, as the amount of useful information was extremely limited. There were no instances where I found something on one of these other forums that I did not also find posted on Degreeinfo. Endless rehashing of personal attacks against John Bear and Rich Douglas on those forums were of no use to me at all.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Two threads, no waiting.

It's too bad the moderators/administrators can't re-code all the posts from this thread so that they appear, appended to and/or blended-in with, the posts in this thread -- or vice versa, if that would be more appropriate. They're both active and at this point they're both starting to cover the exact same territory; and responses in that thread are now appropriate to things posted here -- and vice versa.

Can something like that be done -- with the resulting thread ending-up over here in "off topic discussions," where the topic probably belongs? (Just askin')

EDIT: And, if so, could the resulting thread bear the name of that other thread rather than the name this one bears? (Again, just askin')

 

The correct number would be 40 to 60 like all legitimate schools. K-W falsely gives the impression they will evaluate the student and give them credit for "life experience". They do no such thing. They merely snow the student into thinking they do to sell their degree mill degree. Effective, but fraudulent and arguably criminal.

 

Janko

While I don't agree with you, I can't think of a nicer person to be stalking me than you.

At collegehints pretty well everything said about the egos here was absolutely true, typically being a run-down of their affiliations with schools now considered degree mills.

At online-college there was considerable editorial comment added. With the right frame of mind, some of it could be considered hilarious.

I find some of the comments on AED and online-college to be amazingly democratic and pleasingly levelling.

 

But surely, Dennis, you have to admit there is a fine line between "amazingly democratic" positions.... and mob rule.

 

On his lucid days, didn't George III say the same thing?

 

Maybe, but I would hardly equate the followers of the enlightenment and the events leading up to the founding of the first truly democratic republic (i.e, the U.S.A.) with bullying internet "education" scoundrels that advocate criminal, or at the very least reprehensible, behavior.

The stuff those idiots said about Mark Israel and his recovery alone is enough to damn them for all eternity...

Why associate with such pondscum? You're better than that Dennis.

 

No I'm not.

While I am not thrilled with things that are not true, I simply look on online-college as a mirror image of this site for voices that are not welcomed here.

 

You may have found something upon which we can agree!

If you are not thrilled with things that aren't true, why the heck did (do) YOU make such posts and encourage others to do the same?

 

I don't recall making any posts that were not true but I'm sure you could dredge something out of your NKVD files.

 

How about when you stated that you were planning on deceiving people into believing that your CCU doctorate was accredited. Then later you claimed that you were lying simply to incite and infuriate people. Both statement cannot be true. If you believe either statement then it indicates that you're not honorable.

 

Veracity, Dennis, is not dependent on your (selective) memory or inability to recall. Moreover, having pointed out numerous examples of your callous disregard for the truth in past, if I were to do so again, I am sure you would simply default to your now standard answer—claiming that you were only trying to humorous.

 

We agree.

 

Three for three that usually object to everything I say. Where's Janko?