Oregon and Kennedy-Western

Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

Sure. Fine. It's much easier to belittle my admittedly pompous style and my Swiftian giantissitude of verbiage, and that I crack my egg on the small rather than big end than it is to attack the science and the math. So go right ahead and take that path, if that suits you better.

To refute the science, however, would do me more of a service than to tell me what I already know about my conversational style (and am trying to correct).

Here we clearly disagree. If the degree is legal and the work is legitimate, the pedigree of the institution is immaterial to some.

Pretty much so, as evidenced by many things.

My arguments against “life experience degrees” were posted in the past in article form in “An Argument Against Work and Life Assessment Doctorates
and For Guided Independent Research.”

I posted it in full here:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/static/forum_archive/3/3251/thread_3251_page_2.html

My views haven’t changed since I wrote that, except that further experience and exposure have inclined me to be less strict regarding master's degrees in this regard than when I wrote that.

Cheers.

 

Dumnezeu! Cellos and towels!

 

Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

And by the way -- please do not patronize me by rolling your eyes at that statement I made about "accredited" elementary school policy.

In December 2004, a boy (with intent) threw a basketball at my already badly injured wife, and by one inch missed the injured spot on her neck, and when we asked for a written apology for what could have easily hospitalized her, she was denied justice because of the "accredited" school policy of protection of privacy of the minor who assaulted her.

The decent thing to do and the accreditable thing to do in that case were in severe misalignment. (Yes, elementary schools here go through an accreditation process.)

So let's not pretend I am paranoid about the matter.

 

Sorry -- I only play classical guitar -- and poorly at that. It would make you weep to hear it -- but for entirely different reasons than those implied.

But hey -- if you want a good laugh or cry -- be my guest:

http://members.shaw.ca/qjackson/gallery/iob-qtj.mp3

 

Why? Or perhaps better said, why not? Most individuals consider his or her legitimately earned credentials a success story. I know I do.

You and I have spoken privately about this and you know how I feel; what happened to you was despicable. That having been said, it must be pointed out that, more than likely, having a bogus degree was much more prejudicial than not having any degree at all. In other words, your employer might have been predisposed to defend their decision to waive the need for an accredited degree, but could not justify defending the hiring of someone who claimed a bogus one.

You can’t it both ways, Quinn. You can’t link your work to your degree when you want others to accept the degree as legitimate, yet sever the link when you want the degree to be deemed irrelevant to the work or not have the work tainted by the degree.

Be careful, Quinn; these personal experiences and comments would be considered traitorous by your associates on other fora, as they echo precisely what so many of us on this forum have been warning others about for years.

You may be unconvinced, but I am willing to wager on it.

I don’t understand. If an individual chooses to marginalize himself or herself by choice, why should they (even though I don't understand how a "state of affairs" can actually do anything)?

My, my, that was quite a sudden and large leap from self-marginalization to “demonization,” wasn’t it?

If the search for “enlightenment” is, as you say, “personal,” why should an individual expect or insist that a credential that he or she knew in advance was controversial or of low acceptance and validity be widely accepted as credible evidence that such an “enlightenment” actually took place? It is hypocritical to eschew standards then argue for equivalency.

This is a popular concept among the members of other fora that are populated by those who were incapable of engaging in civil discussion. I can find no evidence of anyone espousing such an opinion on this forum.

Let’s face it, Quinn, what happened to you (like what happened to me) was the work of a severely disturbed individual(s). Personally, however, you’ll pardon me if I take your newfound noblesse with a large grain of salt based on your previous lack of repudiation of egregious behaviors by individuals whose actions and identities were well known to you.

I truly hope that you are not objecting to “wit,” Quinn, as it humanizes discussion and prevents it from becoming tedious and boring. Some of the brightest minds throughout history freely and frequently displayed their wit, and indeed, would not probably have been deemed so brilliant had they not done so.

 

This reflect my own thoughts as well. I think that most people in that situation would be outwardly cordial even if they were chuckling to themselves. I'm not saying that was actually the case in Quinn's situation. I'm just saying that I would expect people to remain cordial when someone claims an unaccredited degree even though I believe that usually they will be thinking to themselves that the person is probably an academic fraud. This is why I consider it doing a service to the people coming here and claiming unaccredited degrees to let them know.

These pockets of academic frauds patting each other on the back like over at Jamesville, etc. is not the real world. It is a group of individuals that are in significant part, in denial. Rich's study as well as my own experience indicates that when people hear that a degree is unaccredited, they tend to jump to the conclusion that the degree is bogus, since over 99% of the time, it is bogus.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

To whom is the “pedigree” of the conferring institution immaterial when evaluating the legitimacy of a degree? A degree mill, regardless of the work submitted, cannot confer a legitimate degree. Period.

Earlier you posted a quote by Samuel Johnson that bears repeating.

• "The supreme end of education is expert discernment in all things—the power to tell the good from the bad, the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the good and the genuine to the bad and the counterfeit."—Samuel Johnson

When I first read this on your Web site, Quinn, I doubled up in laughter. You see, Quinn, a degree from American Coastline University is not genuine; it is counterfeit in the sense that it does not accurately represent what the general public expects such a degree to represent. For anyone to insist otherwise demonstrates a clear lack of discernment; and, according to Samuel Johnson, such a lack of discernment is indicative of a lack of education.

It seems that Samuel Johnson seems to agree with the view that a bogus degree, instead of enhancing or corroborating, actually detracts from demonstrable education.

 

Okie dokie, Quinn. You are busy feeling sorry for yourself because you were treated badly by lunatics at aed. You even got Rich Douglas to feel sorry for you since he was and is treated badly by similar lunatics. So you post on a forum which does nothing but treat others badly--especially Rich Douglas and Gus Sainz--and you make no objection to what they do.

Discuss your ACE degree all you like. Claim quality for your diss all you like. (What the hell, I defended the quality of Neil Hayes' dissertation--and have had nothing but abuse from him because I wouldn't defend the entities that awarded a doctoral title to him.) But don't claim the moral high ground. You ain't got it.

And put that damn double bass away and leave the tarpaulin alone.

 

Those times I have thrown a few spurs, I did it under my real name, and I apologized for having gone over the edge of ad hominem. I have endeavored to avoid repeating that.

Is my present refusal to participate in name calling at this point in my life tacit complicity or tacit condemnation of such behavior? You (and apparently Gus) read it as tacit complicity, when in fact, on those occasions I have spoken out on the matter, I have spoken against such conduct, and in no uncertain terms. These (in part) were my exact public words when Gus and Mark were attacked on other forums:

So please do not claim that I have not spoken loudly and clearly and unambiguously and publicly about such distasteful behavior. As for my private knowledge of who and what and when -- in the cases where I knew who was peripherally engaged in the activity, I privately counselled them to cease and desist and not become entangled in such unsavory and dishonorable actions. I refused to become complicit in such utter hogtrash and advised others to flee from their engagement (however peripheral) in such slippery slope behavior. My conscience is clear in this matter. (I take seriously the admonition found in 1 Corinthians 15:33, but as a failed and imperfect human being, sometimes lose my temper and spew enough chum to fill a bucket.)

There are real people behind these messages and these monitors. Some may have demonized and marginalized themselves, whereas others may have been pressed into positions and postures that there is little hope they can escape from without losing "face". Some have been demonized and marginalized unduly.

I made my bed, I slept in it; it was lumpy, I didn't get much sleep as a result. As my stepfather used to say, "If you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis."

The fleas I have jumped from the grass I sowed and not from any dog I've slept with, because I don't sleep with dogs. Pardon me for treating those some here would call dogs as the human beings they are -- human beings fraught with their own reasons and motivations for what they do.


You talked earlier of empathy for my fellow man. Yes, I have it. But I won't allow public opinion tell me who the dogs are and are not. I let my heart and my conscience tell me, after having had real communication with the people, rather than surface communication with their reputations before men.

The hearts and motivations of men are not as utterly transparent as some might wish to believe.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

Actually, Gus, when I was writing that article and finding quotes to put in the left column, I heard you doubling over with laughter as I pasted that one in there. It's good to see that I didn't disappoint your sense of irony and wit.

Did you also laugh as loudly and wholesomely at this one?

;-)

 

I don't know why anyone would participate in both fora. The few posts there that are both civil and on-topic are far outweighed by the disgusting behavior that is so prevelant among its most prominent posters, not to mention the shilling for obviously fake schools. Civil participation on that board serves to give legitimacy to the illegitimate. Does that amount to tacit approval? Probably not, but ignoring that behavior is still wrong.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

I’m sorry, Quinn, but you are mistaken. I am not patronizing you for your statement “about ‘accredited’ elementary school policy.” Instead I am rolling my eyes at the way you habitually lack any corroborating evidence for your assertions and instead expect us to believe that personal angst and pity are acceptable substitutes.

To imply that “accreditation” is “bad” because an elementary school won’t acquiesce to your demands for an apology from a student (for whatever reason) is preposterous. I, for one, am RFLMAO.

First, isn't intent something that is difficult, at best, to ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second, am I to understand that you were demanding an apology based on what could’ve happened?

Third, is it your contention that a basketball (size?) missed “by one inch” (certainty?) a specific injured spot (size?) on your wife’s neck?

Fourth, do you really equate an apology for something that didn’t happen as “justice,” and the lack of an apology as “justice” denied?

Fifth, do you honestly believe that schools (accredited or not) should not protect the privacy of minor students? Does this also apply to the schools your own children attend?

Sixth, do you have any evidence that unaccredited schools frequently and as a matter of policy violate the privacy rights of minor students? In other words, do you have any evidence that only accredited schools protect the privacy of minor students and that they only do so to preserve their accredited status?

Seventh, assuming the incident transpired exactly as you claim, do you truly believe that the use of the term “assault” (which has specific criminal implications) is either accurate or honest?

No they weren’t; whether they were accredited or not, the school did the decent and responsible thing. Moreover, more than likely, their decision had nothing to do with accreditation. It would have been highly irresponsible and ill-advised to force a minor child to apologize and reveal his identity to a couple of grownups with some bizarre ideas about what constitutes justice and who were obviously disturbed and irrational enough to insist that the school indeed do so.

Paranoid about what, Quinn? I am simply pointing out that you are grasping at some pretty elusive straws in your attempts to prove accreditation is somehow “bad.”

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

I am glad to see you do not disagree with my assessment and interpretation of Samuel Johnson’s comments, as well as their applicabilty.

Yes, Quinn, I laughed (albeit not as hard as with the Samuel Johnson quote). I laughed when I realized that this quote provided a reasonable explanation for why you no longer list your questionable credentials (civil enough, for ya?) in your cv you have posted online (which also made me smile). I truly hope you have met your “honest man.”

However, whether you have or haven’t met "him," Quinn, I can assure you “he” won’t be found on fora where the members conform (conformity has nothing to do with whether a view is held by a majority or a minority) to the notion that bogus credentials are acceptable and even equivalent substitutes for legitimate ones and kowtow to the false gods of mediocrity and immorality.

In any event, you flatter me when you admit you think of me when pasting quotes to your Web site.

 

Me neither, Rich.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

Poppycock. I already posted one letter of support towards my doctorate from a traditional doctorate holder, which I had "claimed" existed, and I named a few others who supported me.

Then I submit that you, sir, have more than just wit.

Not in this case it wasn't. The child admitted to the school that he threw the ball with intent to hit.

On what did happen.

One inch above C2, and all in the official record.

It happened. The school admitted it happened. The lawyers were informed (because my wife is involved in a lawsuit against the cab that hit her. There were witnesses to the fact that it happened who all corroborated it. The child admitted it happened verbally to the school. The school admitted that the child admitted it happened, and with intent.

It is a school my children attend. Both witnessed this, as well as others of the student body.

Oh, you have me there. All of the rest must be fabricated because I have no evidence of such!

The police were not called and assault charges were not pressed only because the child confessed when found out, and that held my wife off from further action.

Laleh could have pressed charges. The school would then have been forced to follow other paths. The school admitted the child's wrongdoing.

It's the apology that was not forthcoming. The decent thing. And in the absence of formal charges (which my wife felt were to strong, despite the damage that was done her and was documented), the identity of the child was not formally released. It is a school policy, after all, to not release names even when the other party knows the name. Because then lawyers may have been involved and the child's family may have had to pay for the extended medical care my wife had to receive as a resault of the assault. Of course my son and daughter already knew the boy's name. They were right there when it happened.

Yeesh.

 

For the same reason I post on a forum where I am treated like a maudlin liar by some. Because I care about tertiary education beyond its function and affect in my own life and reputation.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

Poppycock? I must, therefore, respond with: Balderdash! Over the years, this single letter is the best you could do to support your fraudulent credentials. However, a single letter from an acquaintance with a legitimate degree, does not render YOUR degree legitimate. In fact, nowhere in your friend’s (business associate?) comments, does he address the question of your degree or its legitimacy; I guess he didn't want to step that far out onto the limb.

Indeeed I do, Quinn; indeed I do. I also have ethics, integrity, and honesty.

He or she admitted it? Sure sounds like he or she took the proper and ethical path and admitted guilt and responsibility. Why would some sadist demand more of a mere child?

Official record? Let the official record show that you and your spouse chose to lower yourselves to the level of a mere minor child and demand some kind of action that could only satisfy some perverse pleasure.

Wait a minute! You have some kind of “official record” specifying by how much this poor child “officially” missed such an “officially” sensitive spot? Is there any kind of “official” record dealing with how many times YOU may “officially” missed equally sensitive spots?

So it is your children who are witness to this incident? Would it be too much to ask if there were any objective witnesses? Moreover, given the facts you now relay, why would you or your spouse derive any kind of perverse pleasure or satisfaction by insisting in some kind of public apology?

Moreover, aside from your lame attempt to equate this with the cockamamie proposition that you have, once again, been personally injured because of the evils of accreditation, why should any of us care?

Excuse me? You were the one who posited this event as a prime example of how much of the travails you and your family have had to endure are the direct result of the evils of accreditation. I simply pointed out how absurd that proposition is.

Then you have no basis, ethical or otherwise, to malign this poor child and state in a public forum that he “assaulted” your wife. Stop being dishonest and puerile.

Let’s see. You are suing a cab driver for monetary damages but granting a school (with presumably much deeper pockets) a pass? Hmm… Doesn’t seem you have much confidence in your case.

So, once again, let’s see. You want to file charges (or demand an apology) based on the extended medical care your wife may have had to receive (but didn’t because nothing actually happened and no injuries were actually sustained)? Are you, by any chance, aware of how ridiculous this sounds? I guess not.

Moreover, few children act aggressively unprovoked. What is indeed missing from this discussion is the other point of view and what your wife may have done to provoke the child.

Quinn, if I have taken you to task over the years, it is over how much you feel you are entitled to and the convoluted logic you employ in an inept attempt to convince others of your victimization and entitlement. Nobody owes you anything; that you feel you are genetically endowed with some kind of cultural and sociological debt is indeed troubling. Even in communist Cuba that kind of crap doesn’t fly.

Once again, what happened in your personal life in an elementary school setting has no relevance to the members of this forum. To brings these matters up here, in this forum, in support for your positions, only demonstrates the paucity of logic and the dearth of evidence you employ in support of your views.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anything can happen once

I could reply to your post in detail, Gus, but I won't, for two reasons. One - I've already passed the line of decorum. Two - were I to continue, everyone would have to start counting their spoons.

So to this, sir, I simply say,

Touche. Well done. You have my respect.

 

send the orchestra home and sing solo

My dear Quinn:

I'm not treating you like a maudlin liar. I'm treating you like a maudlin snob.

I'm really sorry your wife got clobbered with a basketball, which could have been pretty serious in light of her earlier injuries. I'm sure she's a nice lady and I wish her well.

But if you think that an incident in an *elementary school gymnasium* is an indictment of Canadian tertiary education, Canadian tertiary accreditation, or anybody else's tertiary education quality control systems, well, I just give up. And how could you read that kid's mind? I wouldn't know.

If you do care about tertiary education, quit talking about yourself and your sorrows.

Stand up and argue for your ACE degree like a man. Suffer the slings and arrows of repartee. Maybe you can defend the integrity of the thing, maybe you can't. I surely don't know. You may well have done simply terrific work in that dissertation--which says exactly nothing about ACE then or later. You use one good dissertation to float the pirate fleet of millish boats. You use one grade-school basketball to damn responsible tertiary education and quality control. Why not defend the integrity of the thing? It would be worth a shot (sorry for the b-ball term) if it were my degree and I really thought that my degree proved something widely applicable to tertiary education.

You didn't stand up for anything on that other forum. Not anything. Don't even talk to me about what you did on its truly psychotic predecessor fora, let alone on aed--about which no one living gives a rat's posterior any more except for Leland Milton Goldblatt. You coulda been a contender. Instead, in this year of grace 2005, you were studiedly silent about what mattered.

What mattered and still matters?

Honest distance education, not self-inflicted martyrdom.

You have impugned Gus Sainz' character, my sensitivity to the disabled (now that's funny, bucko), and Bill Huffman in general. And that's just on this thread.

Now, if you like, you can go hang out with Comrade Enver, Southern Belle, and a whole bunch of people who do nothing but shill and defame. And since you never challenged the shills and defamers on a single blasted thing--you wrote poems about your own noble self--they will be very nice to you, I'm sure. And you can sob quietly and think your noble thoughts.

Or you can take it like a man, bring evidence and not just bottles of tears, quit obsessing about some elementary school kid with a basketball, and deal with the issues, humdrum and earthbound as they may be compared to your exquisite griefs.

You have said that nobody takes your opinions seriously. How can we? All you talk about are your grievances and your faux nobility. You trumpet "refute my science" and say that unless any criticism of you makes it into a peer-reviewed journal, you are above criticism.

Guess what, Chevalier Quinn? This IS peer review among distance learners. This is peer review among those who care about other folks' situations and not just their own drab and wretched lives. This is peer review among those who want consumers to keep their hard-earned money and not give it to mills. This is peer review among those who do research instead of posting fake posts in Alan Contreras' name and engaging in sick obsession with UIU and Rich Douglas. This is peer review among several professionals in the administration of distance education, and they graciously let the rest of us listen in and talk back, too. This is peer review among those who do not trundle out past ills in order to excuse present moral incoherence.

You can dish it out. But you can't take it. Among peers.

You make ad hominem comments between snuffles and sobs, and look around with astonishment when you get caught and say "who, me?"

Yes, you. Not some ill-bred twerp with a basketball.

J'accuse.

Your thoroughly "charmed, I'm sure" uncle,

Janko

 

Re: send the orchestra home and sing solo

J'adoube!