+- DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth (https://www.dltruth.com)
+-- Forum: DL Hall of Shame: Individuals (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Nominees, second-stringers, others (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE (/thread-869.html)
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - dooglearse - 07-09-2010
BROWN TEAL Wrote:Totally wrong on just about all your naive statements RCD. The degree is in Environmental Management; not that you would know what that is - or have any appreciation of the environment or of anything of value to humanity. You obviously spend your boring existence - stalking, sitting at your computer writing inane posts to numerous Internet discussion groups - five of which you helped destroy - ridiculing all who do not support your RA or NO WAY fanaticism, and in summary - you have been a continual embarrassment to civilisation and to education.
Your words. Yours.
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - dooglearse - 07-09-2010
rockon Wrote:BTW Dr Doogle, my critique is not aimed at the quality of your survey - which I believe is really good - and I don't doubt your ability to do scholarly research, It is just unacceptable, and I can assure you many people would agree with me, that Ph.D.'s should be awarded on the basis of this type of survey.
It isn't "unacceptable." Surveys are the basis for many dissertations. Literally every text on quantitative analysis includes the survey method of data collection. Additionally, mine was very complex and involved sophisticated statistical analyses. (Yes, plural.)
No one who (a) uses a real name and (b) has a recognized (accredited or equivalent) doctorate has ever come to a conclusion similar to yours.
I reject your "assessment" (your judgment that the method is unacceptable), and I invite you to make sufficient "assertions" (statements of facts) to support this point. What authoritative sources might you provide to support the notion that survey methodology is not acceptable for doctoral research?
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - ham - 07-09-2010
Quote:I reject your "assessment" (your judgment that the method is unacceptable), and I invite you to make sufficient "assertions" (statements of facts) to support this point. What authoritative sources might you provide to support the notion that survey methodology is not acceptable for doctoral research?
Come on! Every telemarketer should have a doctorate, then...send out a few questionnaires, make a few phone calls, then punch the result into some stat software and groom the result to make it look as you have solved the biggest theorem of all times. There was this guy at the university who wrote a dissertation on foreign immigration to a Canadian locale...fantastic...full of tables and math gibberish. His supervisor told me the 'secret'
was that immigration to that locale in the period he examined did not exceed 70 people.Last thing Ham wrote was based on a 1000 page book by an author, and several thousands pages of secondary literature.
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - BROWN TEAL - 07-09-2010
After being rudely abused by RCD and his mate GG I've decided to send RCD's 'masterpiece' anywhere in the world - free of charge - but a prior donation of $20 will need to be paid to the BROWN TEAL CONSERVATION TRUST in New Zealand.
RCD's work is legendary and clearly shows that unaccredited degrees and degrees from diploma mills have just as much utility in most employment opportunities as accredited degrees.
Of course, this confirms what his mate JB said some years earlier -
"Many job descriptions specify that a certain degree is required, or that additional salary will be paid, if a certain degree is held. In many of these situations, a good unaccredited degree will suffice."
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - dooglearse - 07-09-2010
ham Wrote:Come on! Every telemarketer should have a doctorate, then...send out a few questionnaires, make a few phone calls, then punch the result into some stat software and groom the result to make it look as you have solved the biggest theorem of all times. There was this guy at the university who wrote a dissertation on foreign immigration to a Canadian locale...fantastic...full of tables and math gibberish. His supervisor told me the 'secret'
Last thing Ham wrote was based on a 1000 page book by an author, and several thousands pages of secondary literature.
Again, criticism never seen nor heard from anyone who has identified him/herself and holds a doctorate from a recognized university.
The following authors say you're wrong:
Czaja and Blair, Designing Surveys
Rea and Parker, Designing and Conducting Survey Research
Lunenburg and Irby, Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation
Creswell, Research Design
Krathwohl and Smith, How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal
Bryant, The Portable Dissertation Advisor
Bryman, Social Research Methods
Patton, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods
Babbie, Survey Research Methods
Dilman, Smith, and Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys
Single and Reis, Demystifying Dissertation Writing
Rudestam and Newton, Surviving Your Dissertation
Sternberg, How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation
Thomas and Brubaker, Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing
Glatthorn and Joyner, Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation
And so it goes....
Are there any that say you're right, that survey methods are inappropriate for doctoral dissertations? I'd love to read them!
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - dooglearse - 07-09-2010
BROWN TEAL Wrote:After being rudely abused by RCD and his mate GG I've decided to send RCD's 'masterpiece' anywhere in the world - free of charge - but a prior donation of $20 will need to be paid to the BROWN TEAL CONSERVATION TRUST in New Zealand.
RCD's work is legendary and clearly shows that unaccredited degrees and degrees from diploma mills have just as much utility in most employment opportunities as accredited degrees.
Of course, this confirms what his mate JB said some years earlier -
"Many job descriptions specify that a certain degree is required, or that additional salary will be paid, if a certain degree is held. In many of these situations, a good unaccredited degree will suffice."
I've been asked not to use identifying names regarding this poster. But he continues to identify me.
His offer to distribute my copyrighted work is a violation of both copyright law (hardly enforceable internationally) and ethics. It is stealing.
That said, I don't really care what he does with it. He's already been demonstrated to be an academic fraud. Certainly being a thief can't be much more of a threat. So....
My dissertation is available from Proquest for a comparable amount, and you get it much faster. Still....
I've given away copies of my dissertation for free to anyone who's asked for it. Please provide me a valid mailing address and I'll send you instructions on how to get a copy. For free, of course. That way, if you still want to contribute to Mr. Teal's fundraising efforts, you can do it without being coerced. And you can read for yourself what I found and concluded, without the incredibly false interpretations of Mr. Teal, who is very much interested in making his (putrid) case, any way he can, even if by misrepresenting the results of a study conducted for a doctorate he simultaneously wants you to think is invalid. Wow!
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - ham - 07-09-2010
Quote:Again, criticism never seen nor heard from anyone who has identified him/herself and holds a doctorate from a recognized university.
What difference does a name make? Ok, here is mine: John Smith...
http://pipl.com/search/?FirstName=john+&LastName=smith&City=&State=&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=1
Do you believe what I said now ?
Dr. Duck identified me as John Bear's Millard Fillmore or L.I.A.R partner.
Doctorates? I have 2...isn't that enough?
I did not say that surveys were 'illegal'...I said you used a short-cut...
What about having your friend Bear to evaluate your work? Didn't the platinum standard school have you sign a pledge to the effect you are in no relationship of kinship, affinity, friendship etc with evaluators? I had to. If you did sign one, you lied, right? If you were not required to sign one, what kind of university is that?
The problem with DI/DD people is that they see short-cuts, wiles and tricks of the trade at all times except when they are the culprits.
Sure, you can say that in spite of these minutiae, your work was top class, but so does dr. Duck.
Perhaps there was no alternative to Bear, eh?
Take professor fifteen, that fraud...fifteen people to co-write the dissertation he passed as his...
Oh sure...if he were so bad, why hasn't he been sacked?
See? People with milled degrees say that, too...
Hmm...Amy Bishop...Ward Churchill anyone?
How many politicians roll high on fake degrees before being caught...if ever, that is.
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - BROWN TEAL - 07-09-2010
dooglearse Wrote:I've been asked not to use identifying names regarding this poster. But he continues to identify me.
After 10,000 plus posts of mainly nonsense, over 12 years, it took people here a long time to identify you - YEAH RIGHT: about 30 seconds!
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - dooglearse - 07-09-2010
ham Wrote:What difference does a name make? Ok, here is mine: John Smith...
http://pipl.com/search/?FirstName=john+&LastName=smith&City=&State=&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=1
Do you believe what I said now ?
Dr. Duck identified me as John Bear's Millard Fillmore or L.I.A.R partner.
Doctorates? I have 2...isn't that enough?
When making assessments, one's qualifications to do so are essential. So, no, it isn't enough. You don't demonstrate any expertise, so your opinion isn't reliable. We're left with any assertions (facts) you might make, but you didn't make any, except that surveys were inappropriate for dissertations--something I destroyed.
Quote:I did not say that surveys were 'illegal'...I said you used a short-cut...
Actually, you said they were "unacceptable", which isn't true. Survey's aren't "short-cuts," either. They're utterly acceptable data-gathering methods. To say otherwise puts you--an anonymous (at least in theory) poster with no credentials against the entire canon of literature on the subject.
Quote:What about having your friend Bear to evaluate your work? Didn't the platinum standard school have you sign a pledge to the effect you are in no relationship of kinship, affinity, friendship etc with evaluators? I had to. If you did sign one, you lied, right? If you were not required to sign one, what kind of university is that?
You're using a mistaken premise--that Bear was my friend. In fact, I didn't have any "relationship of kinship, affinity, friendship etc" with the members of my doctoral committee at the time they were assigned--including Bear. My very first contact with him was to ask him to be on the committee, which is true of every person assigned. Sorry, no lying here.
Quote:The problem with DI/DD people is that they see short-cuts, wiles and tricks of the trade at all times except when they are the culprits.
You haven't demonstrated any such thing took place. Will the facts affect your point of view, or are you dedicated to maintaining it despite the truth?
Quote:Sure, you can say that in spite of these minutiae, your work was top class, but so does dr. Duck.
I've never asserted that. I've always maintained that my doctoral work was sufficient, that's all.
Quote:Perhaps there was no alternative to Bear, eh?
In 1986, John Bear was the nation's expert on the subject. Even today, he remains eminently qualified.
Quote:Take professor fifteen, that fraud...fifteen people to co-write the dissertation he passed as his...
Your beef with him (or Bear, or anyone else) isn't for me to take up.
Quote:Oh sure...if he were so bad, why hasn't he been sacked?
See? People with milled degrees say that, too...
Hmm...Amy Bishop...Ward Churchill anyone?
How many politicians roll high on fake degrees before being caught...if ever, that is.
Again, not my fight.
RE: A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR DOOGLEARSE - ham - 07-09-2010
Quote:In 1986, John Bear was the nation's expert on the subject. Even today, he remains eminently qualified.
A former owner, promoter or manager of schools he now refers to as mills, larks etc as reported in THE TIMES and other publications. I knew you would have said that...that is why I anticipated you.
Quote:You don't demonstrate any expertise, so your opinion isn't reliable. We're left with any assertions (facts) you might make, but you didn't make any, except that surveys were inappropriate for dissertations--something I destroyed.
Can you please point out where exactly did I say "inappropriate" or something? I think I did not. If I did not, what is that you have destroyed, exactly
?Quote:Actually, you said they were "unacceptable", which isn't true. Survey's aren't "short-cuts," either. They're utterly acceptable data-gathering methods. To say otherwise puts you--an anonymous (at least in theory) poster with no credentials against the entire canon of literature on the subject.
Can you please point out where exactly did I say "unacceptable" or something? I think I did not.
By your standards then, every telemarketer could get a doctorate tomorrow by virtue of the thousands of survey calls he made...or not?
My opinion is he could, like that guy who surveyed the presence of 70 immigrants. It isn't illegal...it is a short-cut. There are surveys AND surveys...you did not survey say the marriage records of an entire county during 2 centuries...did you?
If you notice, I said nothing about surveys in general.
Quote:Your beef with him
Beef? You've opened the season on ducks for 7 pages...come on guys, let it rest.