question for Russ "without horns or teeth"

It hastens the arrival of the Troll Bus, which takes them away.

 

It is not a "troll bus" that takes people away from this board it is rudeness of the posters who play this game over and over again with other new people who may have come here just to get information. You guys treat anyone who disagrees with you as a troll because you refuse to see any viewpoint but your own.

How many of your thousands of posts have you used to insult people until they went away Rich? Don't tell me this is the first time since you seem to know the game so well. You have used at least a hundred just trying to keep up with me.

I had no agenda coming here other than to get information. Of course, no matter how many times I say that you guys don't believe it. That is the real problem on this board, not me.

 

Interesting that most of your posts have had to do with giving "information," not getting it.

As for insults, your behavior is insulting. What do you expect people to do in response, thank you for it?

The vast majority of people on this board exchange posts and ideas without the rancor you cause. We disagree all the time, but not with the bitterness you bring. No, you're a member of that small group of degree mill supporters who get mad at being treated shabbily (normally by being asked to support their incredulous statements).

Because of your unwillingness to discuss the very things you post, and because of your churlishness, you've moved the focus away from your statements and towards you. That makes what you say irrelevant, and it is that irrelevance--that you're not able to get the results you seek--that will make you go away, not some "insult" you want to cry about.

Now, I'm tired of characterizing your bad behavior, and you don't like it anyway, so I'm done with it. But every stupid statement about higher education you put up on this board will get a response from someone, often me. The rest of the ad hominem will have to go.

 

Russ,

What you claim as to your agenda may or may not be true. I tend to disbelieve it. However, if it actually is the truth then I suggest that you reread some of the posts that you may consider insulting. They are the truth and people have tried to explain to you the reason way you're not believed. They also explain why the real problem is you. You don't have any credibility. This has been caused by you primarily, not anyone else.

Take care,
Bill

 

I am always hesitant to enter these discussions.

Long, long ago and far, far away, I learned that devotees (read: fanatics) are not amenable to reasoned discussion. Attempts at a reasoned discussion with them is a fruitless activity, since they don't start from a balanced perspective in which evidence is the principal arbiter of fact. They know what they know, and all who oppose them are ipso facto wrong. They don't want to learn. They want to teach.

When I reach the point where I understand that this is the dynamic, I lose interest quickly. I have never encountered a fanatic susceptible to persuasion. Perhaps I should be more aggressive in these instances. Perhaps others will learn that the individual in question is indeed a fanatic. I suppose I have faith that after the first few exchanges, everyone--lurkers and newbys alike--will understand what's going on and will appropriately beware. But perhaps I am just hopeful in this.

I don't know whether Russ is a shill mill or not. Although, the fact that he has posted so many times in such a short period on essentially one topic should raise alarms, as many on this board have alluded to. Perhaps, like some, he just doesn't like having his opinions contradicted. Once his hackles are up, he'll defend his position to the death. Perhaps he is a contrarian by nature. Perhaps he just likes to stir up the muck. Whatever the source of his activities on this board, it is certainly clear by this point that he is neither amenable to reasoned discussion or susceptible to persuasion by evidence.

I have always thought that an opinion without respect for evidence is just an intellectual fart.
Some people just suffer more from intellectual flatulence than others.

BTW, I think I prefer Janko with teeth and horns attached . . . . . . . much more entertaining.

marilynd

 

There has been multiple examples here where a degree mill apologist shows up and eventually changes their tune. It does happen and I for one haven't yet given up on Russ yet.

 

Isn't that also from the playbook of the Bush43 administration? It's most certainly from Karl Rove's. And Dick Cheney's. Among others. Just my opinion.

Agreed. The only thing that needs to be established for the benefit of readers, here, is that russ isn't credible; that he is most definitely a troll, despite his denials; and that pretty much anything he writes, here, therefore, should just be scrolled-past. If he changes his ways, then that's another matter altogether. But for as long as he comes here and stirs the pot just for stirring's sake; and misguides people coming here for information, who may not really be as up on things as other posters in this thread and who, therefore, might easily be misled by russ we should not stop calling him on his bad behavior.

Of course, then, there's that.

And me. And I agree with everything else Rich wrote.

Agreed. In how many way, and by how many people, russ, do you need to be told these things before it finally sinks in?

Too bad, because your words, here, have certainly been a breath of fresh air.

Agreed.

The problem is, as in most forums, people don't adequately avail themselves of the Search function. Short memory is a problem in places like this. It's not the regulars around here that I'm worried about. Rather, it's the newbies who hear or read something somewhere about this being the forum to read if one truly wants to learn about this stuff, but who don't realize as they're reading russ's ridiculous posits that he isn't credible. Sure, they could find that out if they used the Search function and read enough threads... but then that takes us back to my first sentence of this particular response. So how to protect the newbie from the likes of russ? Or is it every man for himself?

Strongly agreed. You know, you're really quite good at this. You should be less hesitant more often.

Agreed!

Hmm. Okay... after reviewing some of his posts, I think I actually do see where and how you could come to this conclusion. But you won't mind if we don't hold our breaths, will you?

 

I have found that if you don't agree with the "official" position on this board that you will become defensive quite quickly because the "discussion" will devolve to personal attacks or name-calling (like troll). This adds no credibilty to the argument.

Even though someone may have what they think is a "well reasoned" argument does not mean that anytime it is presented the presentee will wave the intellectual flag of truce and concede the game.

To further your allusion, there has to be a Luke Skywalker to fight the evil empire.

 

Re: Re: Re: question for Russ "without horns or teeth"

Just for the record, my company has nothing to do with the higher education industry nor am I receiving any compensation (just as I assume you are not) in posting here. The only legitimate ( and possible) reason I am being called names is because I don't agree with all of your arguments.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: question for Russ "without horns or teeth"

Nor do you contest them. Nor do you back up your statements with actual facts. And, finally, you average 8.48 posts per day doing it.

 

russ,

 

russ,
I've been coming to DI for quite awhile, I don't post much but do enjoy reading.

I believe its easy to get the impression that most of the long time members here only side with RA, and usually look down on most other forms of accreditation, I know I had that impression at first( not anymore though.).

You must realize that currently RA, DETC, etc.. are the ONLY ways to get an idea about a school without doing tons and tons of research on it.

You must also realize that most people do not have the time or money to research every school, especially HR managers trying to wade through hundreds of resumes, or admissions officers trying to verify an applicant’s prior education.

I guess what I really want to try and impress upon you is this:

If your going to complain about something, back it up.. Not only that, if your going to say the current system is broken or does not work, propose something you feel is better, and give facts and examples.

If you can not do that, at least admit you don't know what would be better.

 

Abbacabba makes a most excellent point.

For example, long ago back in the bad old days before CCU was the fine esteemed upstanding accredited institution that it is today (weeks ago), it was frequently being called a diploma mill in the press. It was being investigated by the Senate committee that was looking into degree mills. The so-called "RA or no way" crowd here was generally supportive but concerned that CCU was unaccredited.

There was a very vocal contingent of people (mostly CCU graduates or students) that would sometimes apparently feel like their school was getting a bad rap here. I don't believe that it was true. I think that it was generally accepted that CCU degrees were for the most part up to or nearly up to standard. (with the main exception being the DBA) So we were really far more supportive than the general press or the general public. They saw unaccredited and immediately linked CCU with the vast majority of unaccredited schools which equates to nothing more than scams and academic fraud.

I admit that it was unfair from a certain context that CCU would get all the bad press, primarily from the perspective that CCU was providing a bona fide academic environment for its students that fostered real education. On the other hand, CCU deserved all the bad press it got because CCU was a perpetually unaccredited institution that from that perspective fell into the same category as the rest of the academic fraud scum that is out there preying on gullible people like <you know who>.

 

Yet another diversion. Russ, do you not realize that you're but one of many who have come before you and offered-up these ridiculous notions; and that there will many more after you're gone? Some things are just foolish on their face and don't require a whole lot of deliberation to be summarily declared so by those with the expertise to do so and/or by the masses, generally.

We know all about guys like you. We can spot 'em 10 miles out. There's nothing new here. I now use, here, the same example that I used in another thread recently, only stated a bit differently: Those here who have established the, as you call it, "official position [of] this board" are no different than, for example, a group of oncologists who might happen to populate a cancer-prevention and treatment board (forum) and will not, collectively, abide some knucklehead creating a username, logging-in, and starting to claim Kool-Aid as an effective cancer cure. If you went to a place like that, and floated a notion like that, I dare say you'd be summarily trounced in a big-assed hurry... much as you've been trounced here for offering-up equally ridiculous notions. And, were you to do something like that in the aforementioned, hypothetical cancer prevention and treatment forum; and were you to be summarily trounced only seconds after your arrival there and positing of such foolishness, no doubt you'd then bitch and moan there, too, about how victimized you were by those who profess the maintainance of status quo.

This argument you are making, under these circumstances, is of the nature of arguments that sociopaths make when complaining that society won't let them do whatever the hell they want. There are reasons why certain things are against the law. Sociopaths just can't see that, and believe that society's rules don't apply to them. While you are not making a sociopathic argument here, your refusal to recognize that facts of the matter and to argue within the natural, logical, inherent constraints of the construct has a creepy, sociopathic sort of feel to it.

Guys like you are always wrong about the sort of foolishness you've been offering-up in these fora. Your repeated protestations to the contrary don't change that or even come close. Reasonable people see you for what you are and nothing more. Ignorant people, without the benefit of those like us to warn them of the folly of your arguments, might get sucked in... to their peril. That's why we're hammering you... because we can't count on newbies who may be ignorant of how things work in the educational world to use the Search function and subsequently figure out who knows what s/he is talking about, like your detractors, for example; and who doesn't, like you, for example -- and countless others before you, and, no doubt, after you.

So we'll continue to call you on your ridiculousness... every time. We'll continue to point out to the reader the folly of your words, the fallacy of your sincerity, and the depth of your disingenuousness. We'll continue to not mince words and call you what any reasonable person who truly understands how things like this work such colorful names as "troll" and "shill" because those are the objectively observable sorts of arguments that you've come here to make, and so are the inescapable conclusions to which any reasonable person must come. If you, as part of your pathetic and ineffective attempts to appear credible and victimized without provocation decide to characterize as "personal attacks" your being called, openly, what you truly are; or your having your foolish arguments and tactics exposed for what they truly are, then so be it. Calling red something truly blue doesn't change the fact that it's still blue. Wishing won't make it so. Jumping up and down and crying foul doesn't mitigate your egregiousness.

You can furrow your brow, and pace back and forth, and wring your hands, and shake your head in disbelief, and decry the unfairness of it all, and scream to the gods from the wilderness that everyone's against you and that you're simply trying to present an alternative viewpoint, but none of it will make a whit of difference. Kool-Aid's not a cure for cancer, and none of the Kennedy-Westernesque arguments you've made here are worthy of serious consideration by anyone. In fact, your arguing that they do is so obviously flawed that it appears to most to be in the same league as arguing that breathing is optional.

Some things are just ridiculous on their face, remember?

So, then, you're admitting that you refuse to yield to well-reasoned arguments just on principle; that giving-up isn't an option even when it's the right thing to do? Is that about it?

Did someone read this guy his rights, here? Is this confession admissable?

Oh, yes... of course. We're the "evil empire" because we don't want to see anyone waste their time and money -- and potentially harm their lives and careers and, in some states, risk arrest -- from being sucked-in by educational institutions with no legitimacy and proffering their worthless credentials under the misguided and incorrect notion that they actually mean something.

Those aforementioned (hypothetical) oncologists who wouldn't want anyone to die after trying Kool-Aid as a cancer cure on the advice of your likes sure would be mean-spirited, evil pricks, too, wouldn't they?

We've got your number, russ. Moreover, the reader now has your number. Can you not see that? And do you not realize that your failure to do so in the face of what has been put before you is starting to make our anti-russ argument here even more effectively than we ever could have?

Get a clue.

 

No, it's because you fit the definitions of the things you're being called. See my previous post to try to understand.

How sad -- ne, pathetic -- it is that you see intransigence as a virtue.

 

I said they "think" they have made well-reasoned arguments, not that they actually had made that type of argument. It is amazing with the verbosity of your posts, you don't read the comment you are talking about.

Speaking of rights, I know my right to disagree with you and anyone else on this board and I will exercise that right. There are others out there (I know because I have heard from them) who also disagree with your adoration of the gods of regional accreditation.

Besides, since you quote Machiavelli at the end of your post, I would think that Niccolo would side with the diploma mills since his method of obtaining what he wanted was by engaging amorality and trickery. To argue for the morality of obtaining legitimate and legal degrees while quoting Machiavelli is paradoxical.

 

"Legal" and "legitimate" are two different things. Even "legal" is difficult to pin down. LaSalle, Southland, California Pacifica, Columbia State, Southwestern, and many others had the exact same legal status as Kennedy-Western. But they were all shut down by federal authorities and their proprietors went to jail. Nice company to be in, and how nice it is to see you defend it.

By the way, in all the years I've been doing this, I've only seen one person who (a) had no unaccredited degrees or connections with fake schools and (b) still advocated for them: Richard Evans. So, you're either Dr. Evans (and I'm not saying that you are, nor even speculating that you are) or you're the second such person in my 27 years associated with this field. Without knowing who you are and to whom you are connected, it is a very simple thing to assume you have connections to K-WU (or a similar business).

As I've noted, it would be extremely unusual for it to be any other way. But asking you is futile, so I won't bother. But I'll go with that conclusion until otherwise demonstrated.

 

Correction: Richard L. Evans, in addition to a legitimate Ph.D., also claimed doctorates from Bridgewater University and Universal Life Church.

 

Yeah, but I think purchased them it to prove some weird point, as opposed to trying to actually justify his purchase.

 

Dr. Evans never had a point (weird or otherwise); he was simply a troll. He did, however, insist that his D.Litt. from Bridgewater was earned and legitimate, and challenged anyone to prove otherwise. This too, however, was, more than likely, just more trolling.