Update re: NAB of Dominica and IUGS

Like who???

 

Stanislav: You realize that you don't have credibility to act like you do? We do not know your real name, and while you do try to dig up relevant information, this effort pales in comparison with just one episode in Steve's history with the topic and the forum: namely, MIGS lawsuit".

Stanislav, I respect your input, regardless of our disagreement pertaining to this subject, but this is not a matter of my lack of credibility in isolation, but a very firm response to a number of posters who are not being reigned in when necessary! To allow certain posters to refer to a poster as a "lowlife" or as in the case of Levicoff, being allowed to make some of the most egregious, vile and disparaging comments ever as well as engaging in sniping behavior,, which escalate a debate rather than defuse it, without one word from the moderators or posters, cannot merely be swept under the rug when discussing my reactions to such ongoing, acting out behavior. This is so no matter how much you and others may believe that Levicoff holds a special place in this forum. And there are many other examples as well of other poster's inappropriate behavior and credibility issues.

Stanislav: I suggest you try to reflect on how YOUR actions help you make enemies even when LITERALLY NO ONE DISAGREES WITH YOU on merits?

Stanislav, with all due respect, it is my impression that the question about reflecting on my actions should be asked of those posters who are fomenting and fostering my level of response, and I am wondering why you are not doing this whatsoever? To focus on my actions in isolation is not exactly being objective or impartial but quite frankly dismissive of the reasons for my reactions!

Stanislav: "This is factual and free from hyperbole. I may nitpick on "virtually nonexistent", but I must agree that IUGS is a rather poor choice for license-seeking aspiring psychologist. Any foreign degree is; let alone the one not explicitly in Clinical Psych and so loosely structured, with kinks in recognition. Not even IUGS itself would argue with this."

Not wishing to belabor this discussion any further, but in fact WE don't know what IUGS would "argue" for or against because when the questions are asked there is never a direct response, either about acceptance of their degrees, licensing, the states from where there students emanate from, etc, etc. In addition, regardless of your beliefs in the ultimate value of NAB, at this stage they won't even respond to basic questions as to their recognition and equivalence to US degrees! IMO, this does not bode well.

Stanislav: "Why then are you so combative?"

Why is this question not being directed towards those posters who initiate these flamming dialogues? That is the $64,000 question because if I was to quote and provide the numerous examples to support my question it would be inordinate and I don't wish to do that. Civility is a two way street and if not then questions arise as to the level of partiality and favoritism for certain posters or topics versus others?

Stanislav: "BTW, comment that your testimony is not as credible without naming your sources is absolutely fair; I'm baffled why would you take this seriously and counterattack. Things you report are PLAUSIBLE, but not sourced; this is simply fact."

Because not only my name, address and phone number was shared with these sources, but the very nature of some of the posts on this forum (ie: I feel rage, you're a lowlife, a liar, etc, etc, etc) can potentially lead to vindictive behavior on the part of some posters! I have observed this to occur in the past on this forum, when employers were called by posters engaged in flame wars, and this does not bode well for any poster whose identity is revealed.

 

I would have been banned long ago ....

 

Ha! B4, you're not so bad. If that's the way the rules worked I'd have to ban myself!

 

SteveFoerster:"If you find it discrediting that I pointed out, correctly, that you won't name any of the states or evaluators you've claimed to call, well, that's your word, not mine."

I clearly explained my rationale for not providing the names of my sources to Stanislav, to not provide any hint as to my identity. However, let's be clear that this is not a court hearing, you are not the judge and I'm not under indictment as a defendant, but a participant, just as you, where there should be reciprocity in providing useful information. However, after all our back and forth dialogue, you have not provided ANY substantive information pertaining to this subject whatsoever but merely take the entitled position of the "judge", demanding that I provide you with evidence as to sources, states, etc.

Foerster:"Either way, the amount of concern you've shown for this, your complete lack of interest in any other topic, and your "asking for a friend" nonsense all raise reasonable questions what your agenda really is."

Once again, YOU are not the judge and I am not the defendant and if I wish to focus on this topic solely, state that I'm asking for a friend", or do not provide information YOU demand, resulting in your concluding is nonsense, is part of the problem I'm alluding to on this forum.

And just for the record, we know what your agenda is and I suggest reviewing The Discourse on Judgementalism as quoted by Luke. In short, take a good look within prior to being judgmental about the motives of others.

 

No response from NAB or UWI!

For posters who may be interested, repeated emails to NAB and the University of the West Indies, including their admissions department and graduate research and information department, over a six week period, have not resulted in ANY response regarding the question of the recognition and equivalence of NAB to US RA!

CLICK!

 

I don't know that any of us are interested, but in light of the non-results of your inquiries, may we assume that you may actually show some common sense for a change and not pursue your own Ph.D. through these entities?

(All in good humor, Jan. I thought I'd give you another chance to trash me.)

 

You don't know "that any of us are interested..."? When were you vetted to be the spokesman for "US"? You have already lost your credibility when you unsuccessfully attempted to trash me with your so called informal survey to have me banned from this forum so you obviously do not represent "US".

As far as giving me another chance to trash you, in fact I haven't given it the slightest thought. However, due to your need for attention, even if negative, you raised the issue, but do not need my help in trashing you because you are doing a great job of doing so all by yourself!

BTW,, IF "all in good humor" includes your undermining attempt to get me banned, I suggest that you get new material for your jokes.