Wanted: Diploma Mill Victims

Originally posted by Chip:
May I respectfully request that you take this discussion to private email? It has strayed considerably from the original topic of "looking for diploma mill victims"

Chip,

While I understand and respect your desire to keep this forum free of personal squabbles, I'm not so sure the heart of the philosophical difference between Paul and I is off-topic. My position is, and has been for months, that Harcourt was caught admitting to being a scam operation. And with scams come "victims" (netwriter's term) of "crooked correspondence schools" (the term used by the poster with an FCC license quoted in the "Harcourt Learning Direct discussion" thread here). PaulC, on the other hand, claims otherwise (in the face of indisputable evidence in support of Harcourt's culpability).


------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

I understand your point. And I think that both you and Paul have made some points that are valid... and the volleying, as far as that goes, is fine. I'd just appreciate it if everyone could do his or her best to stick to facts about Harcourt, to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio.

Thanks for your understanding!

 

Thank you!

 

Thanks Chip, for stepping in and trying to bring this dialogue back on track. I suppose this is NOT the right place to find what I'm looking for. However, all this bantering has given me an idea for an article about discussion boards.

 

Wrong. PaulC, this is your life:
PaulC: I'm just waiting to see a response with substance.

This is no revelation. I have acknowledged saying this and you are simply repeating it. That single post in which it was sated was entirely about your position that Harcourt markets to the poor and uneducated. The "no substance" reply was because you still have not offered any source to back up that opinion. That is the context that you left out.

And later...

PaulC: I'm afraid the only difference between my arguments and yours are that I provide verifiable and citable reference, you do not...You still don't cite anything credible...

Again, no revelation as I have never denied this. I stand by it. It is a fact that you have not provided any verifiable reference to support your opinion-as-fact posts regarding the target market of Harcourt. This is the essential point that you always evade.

This is not a contradiction, PaulC. Smart people get ripped off, too.

The contradiction, as I’m sure you know, is that you have stated repeatedly as fact that Harcourt markets to the poor and uneducated, yet the only examples you provided, and the examples I provided, do not support your contention. Your lack of providing specific foundation for you contention is the basis for the contradiction.

In all of that, I would like you to show me one thing - just one - acknowledging that *anything* could be wrong with the Harcourt picture. Just one, PaulC.

I also have never said your specific complaints are without merit. Since I have not said that, does your logic dictate that I therefore think they do have merit? I have neither praised Harcourt nor have I "acknowledged" their sins. I have neither personal experience nor heard any arguments from the other perspective from which to draw any conclusion. I would hope that you would agree that in any complaint, both sides need to be aired in order for the truth to be seen more clearly. The MIGs lawsuit is a good example of this.

And finally…

… unless you can show otherwise by providing a published quote from you that acknowledges any Harcourt defect within all of your ultra-defensive posts, that generalization of your position will enter the record as accurate.

Skewed logic it may be, you are free to hold this thought. In my book, not acknowledging a thing would never infer the opposite view is held. There is greater complexity that goes into actively acknowledging something than simply opining that if an idea is not explicitly stated, the opposite view is obviously held. Consider it in the record, but still inaccurate.

 

The famous last words of every losing party to a lawsuit as they enter the courtroom. This exemplifies my philosophical problem with your position. You have provided a few quotes that may or may not be acceptable when placed under the scrutiny of the rules of evidence. There are no rules of evidence in this court, so you are free to present your side however you like. It is just one side, however. Culpability cannot be claimed until the value of the evidence is substantiated. Maybe there is truth in your argument, we cannot know simply because you have built a web page and provided a couple of quotes.

Once again, you are the only one "claiming" anything. I ascribe neither innocence or guilt to Harcourt relevant to your claims.

 

Originally posted by netwriter:
Thanks Chip, for stepping in and trying to bring this dialogue back on track.

Yes, it was a good effort on Chip's part. But judging by the two posts above this, it didn't seem to work.

 

Originally posted by PaulC:
I would hope that you would agree that in any complaint, both sides need to be aired in order for the truth to be seen more clearly.

In case this statement might lead someone to believe that Harcourt has not had a chance to "air" their "side", I submit that Harcourt personnel have been reading my posts since I revealed the internal memo condemning Harcourt's educational programs and marketing practices on alt.education.distance September 27, 2000. Harcourt personnel have also repeatedly visited the Harcourt Bites site since its unveiling on the AED in October of last year.


------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com