TV "health guru" with doctorate from Clayton College of Natural Health

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by oxpecker, Aug 7, 2004.

Loading...
  1. amused

    amused member

    Yep, many of us know that a cup of good strong cup of coffee, especially in the morning, will have us running to the toilet!

    However, I also was of the opinion the 'nutritionist' was not offensive, especially in the light of other exchanges I have followed on this forum.

    It appears to me that there are a select group on this forum who can engage in a high level of very personal exchanges. However, this same level is not tolerated if the 'group' suspects or knows that the 'offender' comes from another forum!

    You see, many of us who post here are not 'in the know' when it comes to the 'politics' of this or other forums. We post in good faith, make a contribution to the subjects that interest us and perhaps throw in a controversial comment or two to try and stimulate some discussion. However, the 'politics' of the 'group' goes right over our heads, and we get a bit annoyed when we see the likes of 'nutritionist' banned because he appears to not be in the right 'club'.

    Administrators, please be consistent, and don't exercise censorship because of the above reasons or because your mates are under pressure or upset.

    Really, this forum does have some right regular prima donnas...!
     
  2. amused

    amused member

    Yep, many of us know that a cup of good strong cup of coffee, especially in the morning, will have us running to the toilet!

    However, I also was of the opinion the 'nutritionist' was not offensive, especially in the light of other exchanges I have followed on this forum.

    It appears to me that there are a select group on this forum who can engage in a high level of very personal exchanges. However, this same level is not tolerated if the 'group' suspects or knows that the 'offender' comes from another forum!

    You see, many of us who post here are not 'in the know' when it comes to the 'politics' of this or other forums. We post in good faith, make a contribution to the subjects that interest us and perhaps throw in a controversial comment or two to try and stimulate some discussion. However, the 'politics' of the 'group' goes right over our heads, and we get a bit annoyed when we see the likes of 'nutritionist' banned because he appears to not be in the right 'club'.

    Administrators, please be consistent, and don't exercise censorship because of the above reasons or because your mates are under pressure or upset.

    Really, this forum does have some right regular prima donnas...!
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is typical: non-specific charges of bias. Please cite specific examples: posts with content from some that were tolerated while others who posted the same things were banned. If you can't cite specific examples, I suggest your comments are innacurate.
     
  4. Craig Hargis

    Craig Hargis New Member

    Rich: How about the time you told me to shut up for expressing a simple observation about my own religious beliefs in an off topic thread that specifically addressed a religious topic. It was the very first time you ever posted in reference to me and it was as rude as anything I have seen on this or other forums.

    Blessings
    Craig
     
  5. amused

    amused member

    Well, Rich, I would suggest the ongoing battles between yourself and Neil Hayes, who you continually refer to as 'Dr Dr Duck' and an 'academic fraud', among other things, would be a good example of the personal abuse and vitriol that goes on in this forum without the thought police stepping in.

    Yes, I have made a generalized statement about how discussions are conducted and moderated on this board. However, because I haven't quoted chapter and verse does not take away from the validity of what I and others have observed.
     
  6. amused

    amused member

    And here appears to be another example of someone who has been on the end of your tongue!

    This is not meant to be a personal attack on you, Rich. However, you are the one to pursue the matter and it appears you have been held up to be a typical example.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Please cite the post so I can apologize. Or reinforce my previous post. Until someone cites exact posts, it is difficult to establish what you seek.
     
  8. amused

    amused member

    Come on, Rich; you have got to do better than that!

    Two examples given thus far; both relate to yourself, so it your turn to answer specifically instead of going on with these semantics.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I don't think I've ever called him "Dr. Duck." He has called himself that, however, so I suppose it would be okay. I have referred to him as "Dr. Dr." on many occasions, but that is in direct reference to his claims of two Ph.D. degrees, both from degree mills. This is hardly "personal abuse." "Dr. Dr." Hayes creates that himself when claiming two doctorates from diploma mills.

    (By the way, I'm not the originator of that method. Bear used it a long time ago when referring to Walter Rummerfield, who claimed many doctorates, all from spurious sources.)

    I have never, ever, attacked Neil Hayes' person. I have, however, ridiculed the degrees he's claimed and the arguments he's posed to support them. That is the difference.
     
  10. amused

    amused member

    And by the way, Rich, no one is seeking anything from you- apology or otherwise.

    The point being made is that some contributors to Degreeinfo are cut off for being 'offensive' before others who are more offensive and on a regular basis!
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No. Craig's interpretation is his own. Please cite my exact words (and provide the link). Otherwise, it has not been demonstrated.

    The only times I've ever addressed a person vs. his/her ideas is when that person has made personal statements (such as the degrees he/she claims). And then I've limited my comments to the claims themselves, and to draw conclusions about them. For example, someone making a claim about a fake degree has been called a fraud. But I've had nothing else to say about such a person, just what is relevant to their claim.

    This isn't a difficult distinction. I've made almost 5,000 posts on this board. Certainly you can find an example where I've made an unsolicited ad hominem post that does not relate directly to someone's claims.
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    NO examples have been given. Where are the exact quotes? Where are the links to them?
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    And I contend that this is just smoke without any fire. Please use specific examples. Otherwise, I would suggest that assertions such as these are merely a form of harassment and a violation of the TOS. I look forward to precise examples, not someone's interpretation of some unspecified event.
     
  14. Craig Hargis

    Craig Hargis New Member

    "Easter Story" 03-31-02

    Rich here is just part of your response to me:
    Religious opinions such as yours are either right or they are wrong? Okay. They're wrong! There. We've each had our say. Shut up, already.

    By the way, I was not speaking to you in the context of the thread. And also I am not looking for any kind of apology; its cool. I just want to make a point--Degreeinfo has its favorites that can say virtually anything. I don't really have a problem with that--its your club, not mine. But let's not pretend that there is not an inside crowd. It gets far worse than anything you have ever said:

    I can produce perhaps fifty examples of five or six people here flaming another member absolutely without mercy over a period of two years. It was unbelievable. I quit posting for a long while because of it. You know who I am talking about.

    Point made: Degreeinfo is not fair in its application of the rules.

    Blessings
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2004
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: "Easter Story" 03-31-02

    You say you can provide fifty examples, but you haven't yet provided one. Please provide the link so anyone reading those words will get to see them in their proper context--if they exist.

    This is no more "my club" than anyone else's. I have nothing to do with the board's operation, its establishment, etc. I do not share in its gains, nor its risks. I have never met, nor even spoken with, anyone involved in its operation. In fact, I know only one other board member outside the confines of this board.

    I just post.
     
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I re-read the above and now don't know if the "fifty examples" statement is mine being quoted or the poster's. Sorry if I missed that point.

    Still, while this thread has--as it often does when the topic is diploma mills--we don't see any links to actual threads where the alleged misconduct was tolerated. Absent that, we don't have any support for the poster's thesis regarding favoritism.
     
  17. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I didn't particularly enjoy being called "intellectually lame".

    What annoys me is when interesting discussion of issues is diverted into attacks on Degreeinfo itself and into "you suck, no you suck" school yard personality battles, as seems to have happened here.

    Originally, this thread was a discussion of Clayton College of Natural Health. Now what is it?

    You are the one who started all the whining.
     
  18. Craig Hargis

    Craig Hargis New Member

    Rich: The thread is called "easter Story" posted originally by John Bear on the date indicated 3-31-02. The words are a direct quote.

    The "fifty" examples concern another, far worse, situation that demonstrates that certain people at degreeinfo can say anything they want. I don't want to open up a can of worms for the person involved, so I don't want to start producing quotes and names. There was a person here who could not post on anything without being personally and aggressively attacked by the same two or three individuals. At least two threas had to be closed because of the pathological nature of the attacks, but the individuals were never threatened or removed. If you say you don't know exactly the situation I am talking about then forget it, the point is not worth making
     
  19. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Neil himself used the sig Dr. xx[I forget this part]xx Ph.D. He wouldn't answer me if it was because he had two diploma mill degrees. So that's the "Dr. Dr." part of the story. As for the Duck part I may grant you that one but I strenuously disagree with the academic fraud part. Calling Neil an academic fraud is a plain and simple fact. That doesn't mean that I don't like Neil. I do like him and I respect him for his dedication to helping the Brown Teal. He's an academic fraud and that is not personal abuse. In my view it is even doing him a favor. It is far better, IMHO, that he be told explicitly what people may not mention to him in other contexts. They will think it but not mention it to him. The people that do Neil a real disservice, IMHO, are his so-called friends who congratulate him and defend his bogus degree.
     
  20. agreeable

    agreeable member

    Re: "Easter Story" 03-31-02


    'Amused', who previously posted here, has told me he has been 'removed' from posting with Degreeinfo! Draw your own conclusions!
     

Share This Page