Oregon starts labelling "diploma mills"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

Are you confessing??

 

Re: Gus

Oh, I see. Dennis is saying that if Dennis doesn't know something then it is invalid? or is that irrelevant? or perhaps it is supposed to mean incorrect? I'm not sure except that it obviously is supposed to be insulting if Dennis doesn't know something about Gus.

Interesting

 

If any further proof was needed that fnhayes doesn't understand what he reads then this should be the final proof.

Simply amazing

 

Re: Re: Gus

I guess qualifications are meaningless. Most people who comment on a subject willingly give their credentials to gain credibility. I will grant Gus the expertise to comment on high schools.

Has he ever taken a distance education course? We'll never know. I suspect he is here to add colour, albeit grey.

And Bill, what have you done lately?? More colour??

 

Re: Re: Re: Gus

What you "grant" is hardly important. Gus knows--as I have also learned--converting the unconvertable is futile. Convincing you that you're mistaken is a lost cause, so why bother? You argue merely to argue.

Qualifications are not meaningless. But if Gus chooses not to use his (whatever they might or might not be) to bolster his argument, that's his decision. We're then left with the efficacy of his words, which Gus seems to think is sufficient. Arguing against something Gus hasn't said is dumb.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

My goodness somebody with some distance education experience and a doctorate to boot. I grant you the right to speak.

Argue to merely argue. And you have never been accused of this??

Arguing against what Gus hasn't said is dumb?? Maybe Gus is just some jerk with a computer. I am a jerk with a computer who has taken distance courses from 5 different schools.

Failure to see the difference is perhaps a sign of your tunnel vision. The little spurt of air in a glaucoma test is annoying but I suggest one before your world starts closing in around you. Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

I can see that subtlety is wasted on you. Your post sounds an awful lot like the puerile chant of, "I know you are, but what am I?” What’s next, Dennis, some version of “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you?”

Your obnoxious behavior is barely tolerable when you are genuinely funny; when you are not, it is merely asinine.

And as to confessing, I hope you don’t mind if I wait until you find the testicular fortitude to post (on this forum) your accusation that I am a fraud, specify the precise intentional deception I am guilty of and the injury another party has suffered as a result, and provide evidence for your claims.

 

Re: Re: Re: Gus

No, qualifications aren’t meaningless. However, academic degrees are not synonymous with qualifications.

According to your argument then, R. C. Douglas, Ph.D. (the only individual I know that has credentials directly pertaining to non-traditional education) is the only person with the credibility to speak out on distance learning issues. And we all know the treatment Rich and his credentials have received at the hand of you and your bobblehead buddies. Could you possibly be more hypocritical?

YOU will WHAT? I truly believe you are incompetent to be the grantor in this area. What proof do you have that I ever attended or graduated high school?

Yes.

Wrong again, Dennis, see my answer above.

Hmm… Brown calling others grey. How droll!

 

I am reminded of one Bishop Spong of the Episcopal Church. The good bishop likes to write books debunking Christianity and says that he is making scholarship known to the otherwise hoodwinked masses. What's funny about this is that he constantly reminds his readers that he's a bishop and therefore--not because of his scholarship or information--ought to be believed.

If statements are true and accurate, who cares what degrees (if any) are held by the maker of the statements? If statements are false or tendentious, no degree can rescue them.

I must say I enjoyed the glaucoma joke.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

Yes, it is dumb. In fact, it is very dumb. Better yet, it is very dumb and asinine.

I see. So this is what you mean by credentials?

So tell us, Dennis, in your estimation, does simply taking courses (no mention of completing the courses or degrees) from 5 different schools (no mention of whether they are properly accredited or not) constitute the credentials necessary to be able to comment on distance learning issues with uncontestable credibility?

You are correct on one thing, Dennis; you are funny, very funny. Interestingly, however, you are at your funniest on the rare occasion when you try to post comments that you believe to be serious.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

Yes.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha!!!

 

Yes sir, that Dennis sure is funny. What can be said about someone who believes that misleading others about the nature of one’s degree and making fun of the prospect of slowly going blind are surefire ways of garnering credibility on a distance learning discussion forum.

For those who cling to the hope that the character of the individual who posts here (and elsewhere) as Dennis Ruhl may still harbor even a smidgeon of integrity, do a search of the archives of this forum for any of my posts that contain the term “glaucoma.”

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

Testicular fortitude - funny you should mention the nether area.

A while back when the good doctor Clifton was diagnosing you as obsessive compulsive, I disagreed with the diagnosis. I believed it was a classic Freudian case of penis envy. Not having one isn't as bad as it sounds. Many women function surprisingly well without one.

Mind you, you responded like I was calling your name when I used the term anal retentive obsessive compulsive in another thread. So I guess the jury's still out.

 

Give me a break. I realize it may be a personal issue to you but it was a joke. I no more remembered your glaucoma than I remembered your hemerroids(sp?).

 

One of the few times that I must beg to differ with one of your statements, Gus. Fnhayes has quickly jumped up to number two on my all time favorite academic frauds list. This list is based on how much amusement the unhonored listees have provided me. Now admitedly, Neil doesn't intentionally make humorous statements and I suspect that you were referring to being intentionally funny.

Anyway Neil, I wish to sincerely thank you again.

 

Re: Re: Re: Gus

Actually, I think that qualifications are generally meaningless, unless people are asking others to take their word on faith. Qualifications are evidence that support arguments from authority, and that's an inherently weak form of argument.

Normally, it make more sense to support one's assertions by making explicit the arguments and the evidence that support them.

And in that case qualifications are unnecessary because the reasons for one's position are transparent.

 

Fortunately, Dennis, although for years the intraocular pressures in both of my eyes has varied somewhere between stratospheric and interstellar, I have been able, to date, to forestall the onset of Glaucoma. Whether or not you remember me mentioning it (although not more than a quick glance at this thread is necessary to show how zealous your interest in my personal life is) is irrelevant. Whether or not it is personal is irrelevant; if your joke had been about Cancer, AIDS, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or any life-altering affliction it would have been in equally bad taste and just as revealing of your character and integrity. Moreover, that you choose to make another tasteless joke instead of apologizing (you don’t really know or seem to care if any DegreeInfo members or any of their loved ones are actually afflicted with Glaucoma) also speaks volumes.

Being that you claim to have the credentials and credibility (described by you as unquestionable) to discuss distance learning issues, why is it that you rarely ever really do so, preferring instead to limit your posts to attacking others under the guise (a rapidly disintegrating façade) of (questionable) humor? That too is revealing of your character and integrity. It’s a shame you don’t understand the concept of credibility; if you did, you would realize the negative impact all of what you say and do has upon it.

 

Actually, I was the one who really f*ckin' personally appreciated the joke. Just kidding, right?

Just like when another "good" poster called me a male whore and a n****r; the same "good" poster also engages in slanderous psychological diagnosis. But hey, doesn't a degree mill doctorate in some low-grade subset of religion plus a degree from a health school qualify one to be just as "good" as a real psychologist?

You know what's really sad in all this? When defensible unaccredited schools (like CCU, whatever its limitations) get dragged down to the level of, say, the non-real "good" St Paul Seminary or the supposed "good" Barton Stone Seminary or the inane "good" Golden State or the meretricious "good doctorate slinging" Bethany-of-Dothan. Good for nobody, that is, including, through no fault of their own, CCU.

Gus and the Bills, the only thing worse than the argument from authority is the argument from authority one does not have. When your research and integrity cease to be their own recommendation--something I scarcely fear--then I'll start wondering what degrees you do or do not have, but not until then. Keep up the real work.

 

That's okay Bill. One of my aims in life is to make people happy.
RC possibly won't be smiling when he finds out that a copy of his dissertation has now been posted to me from the USA. Sadly, however, reading it will have to wait until the end of April, when I get back from Europe. (You know what they say - "A well travelled man is an 'educated' one")
As I've said before, when I've read the RC dissertation I shall report objectively on - its value to society, its quality and its overall presentation, and, of course, whether it produces any relevant new information on DL education.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)