<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title>DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth - All Forums</title>
		<link>http://www.dltruth.com/</link>
		<description>DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth - http://www.dltruth.com</description>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:41:48 +0800</pubDate>
		<generator>MyBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Which diploma mill would you rather attend?</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=902</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:10:07 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=902</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[And here by "diploma mill", I'm going by the federal definition of "little or no".

We have five schools. Each operates differently. Which of these five is your diploma mill of choice?

------------

School 1 operates by having its students write a short dissertation/thesis. Degrees are awarded on a creative essay. Anything you write is acceptable. You'll get passed through no matter the content. At this school they're passing you through, but at least you'll get the chance to exercise some creative talent for your degree.

------------

School 2 grants degrees on a single test. You complete the test and get your degree. This school may hold you to a standard.

------------

School 3 will make you read a book for it, but won't test you on the material afterward. At this school you might learn something.

------------

School 4 will award you a degree on a power point presentation. You'll get the chance to make a creative power point presentation of your past work to show to your instructors.

------------

School 5 awards degrees based on accumulated credit transfer from previous schools. No coursework or interviews at this at this school. Fill out some forms and off you go.

-----------

School 6 will award a degree based on a telephone call. They call you up and ask you "What have you done in your life?" After you tell them about yourself they reply "Well, I find you qualified."

-----------]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[And here by "diploma mill", I'm going by the federal definition of "little or no".

We have five schools. Each operates differently. Which of these five is your diploma mill of choice?

------------

School 1 operates by having its students write a short dissertation/thesis. Degrees are awarded on a creative essay. Anything you write is acceptable. You'll get passed through no matter the content. At this school they're passing you through, but at least you'll get the chance to exercise some creative talent for your degree.

------------

School 2 grants degrees on a single test. You complete the test and get your degree. This school may hold you to a standard.

------------

School 3 will make you read a book for it, but won't test you on the material afterward. At this school you might learn something.

------------

School 4 will award you a degree on a power point presentation. You'll get the chance to make a creative power point presentation of your past work to show to your instructors.

------------

School 5 awards degrees based on accumulated credit transfer from previous schools. No coursework or interviews at this at this school. Fill out some forms and off you go.

-----------

School 6 will award a degree based on a telephone call. They call you up and ask you "What have you done in your life?" After you tell them about yourself they reply "Well, I find you qualified."

-----------]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gollin is biased and not professional</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=901</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:30:51 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=901</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Ecole supérieure Robert de Sorbon received some nasty E-mails from Dr. Gollin signed with his position at the University. We responded to him extremely politely and proved with documents and articles of the code of education that he was totally wrong in slandering us.

I took personally the time to enumerate 18 articles of the French code of education and to mention the declaration of two high ranking French officials about our institution and our right to grant degrees in France.

The only responses were as from Gollin "You are a silly fellow (???)  or you are a diploma mill " with no further explanation nor documentation.

In order to convince him that the VAE process at the école supérieure Robert de Sorbon follows the academic rules, we offered him to be part of our VAE Jury in his field of studies to see by himself that our VAE process is serious and legitimate.

It is transparency at its best!

Gollin refused it and expressed more ridiculous "ad hominem" innuendos.

It proves that Dr. Golin is biased and not serious. He prefers to condemn immediately without examining the facts presented or even looking by himself as we generously offered to him a paid position in our VAE jury.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Ecole supérieure Robert de Sorbon received some nasty E-mails from Dr. Gollin signed with his position at the University. We responded to him extremely politely and proved with documents and articles of the code of education that he was totally wrong in slandering us.

I took personally the time to enumerate 18 articles of the French code of education and to mention the declaration of two high ranking French officials about our institution and our right to grant degrees in France.

The only responses were as from Gollin "You are a silly fellow (???)  or you are a diploma mill " with no further explanation nor documentation.

In order to convince him that the VAE process at the école supérieure Robert de Sorbon follows the academic rules, we offered him to be part of our VAE Jury in his field of studies to see by himself that our VAE process is serious and legitimate.

It is transparency at its best!

Gollin refused it and expressed more ridiculous "ad hominem" innuendos.

It proves that Dr. Golin is biased and not serious. He prefers to condemn immediately without examining the facts presented or even looking by himself as we generously offered to him a paid position in our VAE jury.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Status of the French VAE</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=900</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:46:46 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=900</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The VAE Validation des Acquis de l'Expérience established in 2002 with the Loi de Modernisation sociale mandates (not allows) French Universities to grant part or full regular academic degrees on valuable work experience.

Many in the US did not believed this process, which is now, I think,legitimized. Here are the last VAE info available for the year 2008.


More than 4,000 degrees were awarded by French public universities. About the same number were given by private universities.
52% were for full university degrees. This ratio increases constantly over the years. The VAE for simple university credits  (called ECTS) are diminishing.
Bachelor's and Master's are the most common degrees awarded through the VAE process. More and more public Universities like Strasbourg II grant Ph.D. Degrees.



I remember in 2004  self-proclaimed US experts that doubted of the existence of this Law and predicted that no French universities will ever grant a full degree on work experience!!!

It seems, from France, that now the VAE procedure is totally accepted by US Universities for their foreign applicants.Why US universities does not go the same way with PLA?

We were also ridiculed by forecasting that the European Bologna declaration system (3/5/8) will never be accepted by US universities. As far as I know European 3 years Bachelor's degree are accepted by US Universities for their graduate programs. (One of the first one being Duke 4 years ago)

Could you elaborate on that two points?

This thread is not about our institution, which pioneered International VAE but about the French procedure, that could be seen as revolutionary.
Merci beaucoup,]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The VAE Validation des Acquis de l'Expérience established in 2002 with the Loi de Modernisation sociale mandates (not allows) French Universities to grant part or full regular academic degrees on valuable work experience.

Many in the US did not believed this process, which is now, I think,legitimized. Here are the last VAE info available for the year 2008.


More than 4,000 degrees were awarded by French public universities. About the same number were given by private universities.
52% were for full university degrees. This ratio increases constantly over the years. The VAE for simple university credits  (called ECTS) are diminishing.
Bachelor's and Master's are the most common degrees awarded through the VAE process. More and more public Universities like Strasbourg II grant Ph.D. Degrees.



I remember in 2004  self-proclaimed US experts that doubted of the existence of this Law and predicted that no French universities will ever grant a full degree on work experience!!!

It seems, from France, that now the VAE procedure is totally accepted by US Universities for their foreign applicants.Why US universities does not go the same way with PLA?

We were also ridiculed by forecasting that the European Bologna declaration system (3/5/8) will never be accepted by US universities. As far as I know European 3 years Bachelor's degree are accepted by US Universities for their graduate programs. (One of the first one being Duke 4 years ago)

Could you elaborate on that two points?

This thread is not about our institution, which pioneered International VAE but about the French procedure, that could be seen as revolutionary.
Merci beaucoup,]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>NRA U Aims At Leftist Academia</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=899</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:35:08 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=899</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[NRA takes message to liberal academia with new NRA University initiative

Quote:By Caroline May- The Daily Caller | Published: 2:57 AM 07/24/2010 | Updated: 12:40 PM 07/24/2010 
 
The National Rifle Association is in the process of educating the next generation of gun rights advocates, taking their message directly into the belly of liberal academia with their campus initiative, NRA University, or NRA U for short.

NRA U is a training class for students interested in learning more about gun safety, the NRA, the Second Amendment, methods for crime prevention and legislative threats to gun rights. It aims to arm — pun most definitely intended — students with the information they need to debate and become effective activists for gun rights.

Rachel Parsons, an NRA spokesperson told The Daily Caller, “NRA U was conceived to help pro-gun students have a voice in the often one-sided gun control debate on many college campuses.” She continued, “We wanted to offer students the opportunity to learn facts about the Second Amendment and educate them on ways to get involved.”

The program has been in existence for three years and is continuing to grow. To date, the NRA says they have held programs at 14 campuses throughout the country and have reached over 1,000 students.

Sarah Adler, a senior at Central Connecticut State University, went through the program this year. “It’s a great opportunity,” she told TheDC. “They teach you all about Second Amendment issues, history, legislation and how you can get involved. Everyone who came to the event at my school had a great time.”

While the event participants had a good time, Adler says the program was not without detractors. “I go to a school in Connecticut which is definitely a blue state. People who disagree don’t come to the event and voice their problems, they will just rip down our posters. It’s very passive aggressive,” she said.

In the face of such adversity, Parsons notes the manner in which the program can help. “Educating young people on the truth about the Second Amendment provides them with the proper tools to educate others, both on-and off-campus.”

To be sure, gun proliferation is a polarizing issue. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho opened fire at Virginia Tech, murdering 32 people and wounding 25 others. Gun rights activists have argued that more lenient carry laws may have helped to prevent or end the massacre. Others disagree, however, saying the preponderance of guns is what lead to the tragedy.

Today, Virginia Tech remains a gun-free zone, but not one overtly hostile to discussing the issue of gun rights. “If a student organization wanted to bring a speaker to campus they have a right to do so. We don’t restrict anyone from discourse,” Mark Owczarcski, Virginia Tech spokesman, told TheDC. “It would not be a question of whether we welcome it, just so long as the group followed the rules and protocol, such speakers could come on campus.”

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a gun-advocacy group, is gung-ho about the NRA’s attempts to breed young gun advocates. “We fully support gun rights education efforts in universities,” Kurt Mueller, eastern director for the group, told TheDC. “We believe it is important for all adults to be educated about guns and gun safety…..We think its great.”

Parsons is very positive about the effects this program will have in the coming years. “NRA University helps students learn how to become effective grassroots activists working to preserve Second Amendment rights for their generation and for future generations,” she said. “College students today are our leaders tomorrow.”

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[NRA takes message to liberal academia with new NRA University initiative

Quote:By Caroline May- The Daily Caller | Published: 2:57 AM 07/24/2010 | Updated: 12:40 PM 07/24/2010 
 
The National Rifle Association is in the process of educating the next generation of gun rights advocates, taking their message directly into the belly of liberal academia with their campus initiative, NRA University, or NRA U for short.

NRA U is a training class for students interested in learning more about gun safety, the NRA, the Second Amendment, methods for crime prevention and legislative threats to gun rights. It aims to arm — pun most definitely intended — students with the information they need to debate and become effective activists for gun rights.

Rachel Parsons, an NRA spokesperson told The Daily Caller, “NRA U was conceived to help pro-gun students have a voice in the often one-sided gun control debate on many college campuses.” She continued, “We wanted to offer students the opportunity to learn facts about the Second Amendment and educate them on ways to get involved.”

The program has been in existence for three years and is continuing to grow. To date, the NRA says they have held programs at 14 campuses throughout the country and have reached over 1,000 students.

Sarah Adler, a senior at Central Connecticut State University, went through the program this year. “It’s a great opportunity,” she told TheDC. “They teach you all about Second Amendment issues, history, legislation and how you can get involved. Everyone who came to the event at my school had a great time.”

While the event participants had a good time, Adler says the program was not without detractors. “I go to a school in Connecticut which is definitely a blue state. People who disagree don’t come to the event and voice their problems, they will just rip down our posters. It’s very passive aggressive,” she said.

In the face of such adversity, Parsons notes the manner in which the program can help. “Educating young people on the truth about the Second Amendment provides them with the proper tools to educate others, both on-and off-campus.”

To be sure, gun proliferation is a polarizing issue. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho opened fire at Virginia Tech, murdering 32 people and wounding 25 others. Gun rights activists have argued that more lenient carry laws may have helped to prevent or end the massacre. Others disagree, however, saying the preponderance of guns is what lead to the tragedy.

Today, Virginia Tech remains a gun-free zone, but not one overtly hostile to discussing the issue of gun rights. “If a student organization wanted to bring a speaker to campus they have a right to do so. We don’t restrict anyone from discourse,” Mark Owczarcski, Virginia Tech spokesman, told TheDC. “It would not be a question of whether we welcome it, just so long as the group followed the rules and protocol, such speakers could come on campus.”

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a gun-advocacy group, is gung-ho about the NRA’s attempts to breed young gun advocates. “We fully support gun rights education efforts in universities,” Kurt Mueller, eastern director for the group, told TheDC. “We believe it is important for all adults to be educated about guns and gun safety…..We think its great.”

Parsons is very positive about the effects this program will have in the coming years. “NRA University helps students learn how to become effective grassroots activists working to preserve Second Amendment rights for their generation and for future generations,” she said. “College students today are our leaders tomorrow.”

]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sainz Cantinfleando</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=898</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:04 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=898</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
Gus Sainz Wrote:¡Ay Caramba! 

Listen, doctorcito (sorry for the Cantiflas reference—my mother made me watch all his films when I was growing up)...

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...=15#p57247


That explains a lot.  

Now if Goose really had watched all (some 50) of Cantinflas' films he might have known how to spell his name correctly.  It's "Cantinflas," not "Cantiflas." 

Cantinflas was a Mexican comedic actor whose stock in trade was doubletalk and bullshit.  Something to consider when reading Goose's posts.


Quote:Among the things that endeared him to his public was his comic use of language in his films; his characters (all of which were really variations of the main "Cantinflas" persona but cast in different social roles and circumstances) would strike up a normal conversation and then complicate it to the point where no one understood what they were talking about. The Cantinflas character was particularly adept at obfuscating the conversation when he owed somebody money, was courting an attractive young woman, or was trying to talk his way out of trouble with authorities, whom he managed to humiliate without their even being able to tell. This manner of talking became known as Cantinfleada, and it became common parlance for Spanish speakers to say "¡estás cantinfleando!" (loosely translated as you're pulling a "Cantinflas!" or you're "Cantinflassing!") whenever someone became hard to understand in conversation. The Real Academia Española officially included the verb, cantinflear, cantinflas and cantinflada in its dictionary in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantinflas#Impact]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
Gus Sainz Wrote:¡Ay Caramba! 

Listen, doctorcito (sorry for the Cantiflas reference—my mother made me watch all his films when I was growing up)...

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...=15#p57247


That explains a lot.  

Now if Goose really had watched all (some 50) of Cantinflas' films he might have known how to spell his name correctly.  It's "Cantinflas," not "Cantiflas." 

Cantinflas was a Mexican comedic actor whose stock in trade was doubletalk and bullshit.  Something to consider when reading Goose's posts.


Quote:Among the things that endeared him to his public was his comic use of language in his films; his characters (all of which were really variations of the main "Cantinflas" persona but cast in different social roles and circumstances) would strike up a normal conversation and then complicate it to the point where no one understood what they were talking about. The Cantinflas character was particularly adept at obfuscating the conversation when he owed somebody money, was courting an attractive young woman, or was trying to talk his way out of trouble with authorities, whom he managed to humiliate without their even being able to tell. This manner of talking became known as Cantinfleada, and it became common parlance for Spanish speakers to say "¡estás cantinfleando!" (loosely translated as you're pulling a "Cantinflas!" or you're "Cantinflassing!") whenever someone became hard to understand in conversation. The Real Academia Española officially included the verb, cantinflear, cantinflas and cantinflada in its dictionary in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantinflas#Impact]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gollin Posts Again At Gay Boy Porn Front</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=897</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:07:47 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=897</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The statute of limitations on pedophile-pandering porn and perversion apparently has expired.  

Hypocrite George Gollin, the warped moral compass of the wealthy higher ed cartel, is back posting at gay boy porn front DegreeInfo.  

This time under his own name, rather than the fake "galanga" moniker under which he made 1,280 posts.  His last previous post at DegreeInfo as "g-gollin" was 09-03-2005.  His last post there as "galanga" was 01-09-2006.


Quote:  #7    Today, 04:32 AM  
g-gollin  
Registered User   Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 52  
 

MuchEduNoLearn Wrote:  
I have a friend who is a victim if the Robertstown University scam, rather than someone trying to get a fraudulent degree. When just 3 months shy of graduating from high school, she used RU distance learning to complete high school and obtain a diploma (this was in 1999). Apparently, everything was as you would expect from a distance learning program, and tests were written and passed for all subjects. The problem is that now, she is trying to apply to go back to school and doesn't have a transcript, and no obvious access to one either. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to get around this stinking mess? 


Your friend is lying about having done work. None was offered, none was assigned. It was entirely pay-and-go. Robertstown did not exist until late 2001 or so. Contact me by email: g-illinois.edu 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by g-gollin; Today at 04:35 AM. Reason: More info. 
 

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/342990-post7.html]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The statute of limitations on pedophile-pandering porn and perversion apparently has expired.  

Hypocrite George Gollin, the warped moral compass of the wealthy higher ed cartel, is back posting at gay boy porn front DegreeInfo.  

This time under his own name, rather than the fake "galanga" moniker under which he made 1,280 posts.  His last previous post at DegreeInfo as "g-gollin" was 09-03-2005.  His last post there as "galanga" was 01-09-2006.


Quote:  #7    Today, 04:32 AM  
g-gollin  
Registered User   Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 52  
 

MuchEduNoLearn Wrote:  
I have a friend who is a victim if the Robertstown University scam, rather than someone trying to get a fraudulent degree. When just 3 months shy of graduating from high school, she used RU distance learning to complete high school and obtain a diploma (this was in 1999). Apparently, everything was as you would expect from a distance learning program, and tests were written and passed for all subjects. The problem is that now, she is trying to apply to go back to school and doesn't have a transcript, and no obvious access to one either. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to get around this stinking mess? 


Your friend is lying about having done work. None was offered, none was assigned. It was entirely pay-and-go. Robertstown did not exist until late 2001 or so. Contact me by email: g-illinois.edu 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by g-gollin; Today at 04:35 AM. Reason: More info. 
 

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/342990-post7.html]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Deviant's Dream Death</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=896</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:37:42 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=896</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[We don't make 'em up.  This is how Oregon's adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator Alan Contreras hopes to die.  Let's hope the good Lord grants him his wish sooner rather than later.


Quote:Most want to go living to the fullest
By Bob Welch
Register-Guard columnist

Appeared in print: Thursday, Jul 15, 2010 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Tuesday’s column about how — given a choice — you’d want to die, many accepted my invitation to respond. A sampling, with thanks for those who shared:

. . .

“The news report would read: ‘Alan Contreras died today at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Southeast Oregon. According to longtime friend Holly Reinhard, who was with him at the time, he apparently suffered a stroke moments after taking photos of Oregon’s first record of Swainson’s Warbler. He dropped the camera on the bank and fell backward into the Blitzen River. They never found the body.’ ”

— Alan Contreras, Eugene

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[We don't make 'em up.  This is how Oregon's adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator Alan Contreras hopes to die.  Let's hope the good Lord grants him his wish sooner rather than later.


Quote:Most want to go living to the fullest
By Bob Welch
Register-Guard columnist

Appeared in print: Thursday, Jul 15, 2010 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Tuesday’s column about how — given a choice — you’d want to die, many accepted my invitation to respond. A sampling, with thanks for those who shared:

. . .

“The news report would read: ‘Alan Contreras died today at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Southeast Oregon. According to longtime friend Holly Reinhard, who was with him at the time, he apparently suffered a stroke moments after taking photos of Oregon’s first record of Swainson’s Warbler. He dropped the camera on the bank and fell backward into the Blitzen River. They never found the body.’ ”

— Alan Contreras, Eugene

]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Cato Institute Supports Academic Freedom</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=895</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:21:59 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=895</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[http://www.cato.org/

If you are, like myself a person who values civil liberties and individual freedom you are probably concerned about the errosion of our constitutional liberties. And Academic Freedom is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I ranted for years about how we have idiots like that one Professor Asshole from University of Illinois and this ding-dong from Oregon trying to make it illegal to "use" certain University Degrees. Well I am not taking this crap sitting down.

And I finally found a group who agrees with me.

Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank which is fighting our fight! They are outspoken about the hypocracy and fraud concerning accreditation in higher learning.

And thats just the beginning. This group is truely a bastion of liberty in a sea of oppression. 

They are not right or left but they are simply for Freedom. Check this group out. And if it really interests you, become a supporter like I am. :)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[http://www.cato.org/

If you are, like myself a person who values civil liberties and individual freedom you are probably concerned about the errosion of our constitutional liberties. And Academic Freedom is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I ranted for years about how we have idiots like that one Professor Asshole from University of Illinois and this ding-dong from Oregon trying to make it illegal to "use" certain University Degrees. Well I am not taking this crap sitting down.

And I finally found a group who agrees with me.

Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank which is fighting our fight! They are outspoken about the hypocracy and fraud concerning accreditation in higher learning.

And thats just the beginning. This group is truely a bastion of liberty in a sea of oppression. 

They are not right or left but they are simply for Freedom. Check this group out. And if it really interests you, become a supporter like I am. :)]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Any idea for Columbia Southern U?</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=894</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:05:10 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=894</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi friedns, this is my first time in this site. I've been searching for a PhD in business since already had a MS from a regional accredit university. My probelm is working schedule rotates every week, so I prefer online classes. I was thinking about Northcentral U also but changed my mind when I read topics in this site.

Thank you for your help.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi friedns, this is my first time in this site. I've been searching for a PhD in business since already had a MS from a regional accredit university. My probelm is working schedule rotates every week, so I prefer online classes. I was thinking about Northcentral U also but changed my mind when I read topics in this site.

Thank you for your help.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Hungry Ghost v. Brandon at DD</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=893</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:39:37 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=893</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[They are going at it furiously over ... female bishops in the Church of England. :rolleyes:

DD thread

Just when you started thinking that John Bear was no long relevant in DL, he goes off on a month-long vacation to Sweden and the most interesting discussion taking place at DD involves policy changes in the Church of England.

It may be interesting to note that Jack Tracey actually posted some substantial comments and eschewed his recent habit of posting links without comments, leaving us to guess what he may have intended. Perhaps this signals a return of the engaged, lively Jack circa 2005 instead of the Gus Sainz clone he has morphed into of late.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[They are going at it furiously over ... female bishops in the Church of England. :rolleyes:

DD thread

Just when you started thinking that John Bear was no long relevant in DL, he goes off on a month-long vacation to Sweden and the most interesting discussion taking place at DD involves policy changes in the Church of England.

It may be interesting to note that Jack Tracey actually posted some substantial comments and eschewed his recent habit of posting links without comments, leaving us to guess what he may have intended. Perhaps this signals a return of the engaged, lively Jack circa 2005 instead of the Gus Sainz clone he has morphed into of late.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Contreras Fairy Tale Exposed</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=887</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:23:16 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=887</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[When he's not writing his gay poetry or bird watching, Alan Contreras--the adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator--likes to share diploma mill fairy tales with the public.

His latest effort is getting the sort of rave reviews you would expect the work of a pathological liar to receive--even at DD!

In fact, Hungry Ghost's deconstruction of Anal's fairy story was so devastating I'm just going to copy his post here after the original story.  Very good work HG.  Let's hope the kkklones read and consider every word, and perhaps there will be fewer of them as a result.


Quote:Diploma mills: Lessons from the Galle and Colvin cases

Published: Monday, July 19, 2010, 8:00 AM

by Anal Contreras

Two interesting cases covered by the media in recent weeks have brought some attention to the problem of degrees from diploma mills. The Oregonian's excellent coverage of the Patti Galle case in West Linn brings some helpful visibility to the problem of fake degrees. The Bend Bulletin discovered that Clark Colvin, a Republican candidate for governor, was claiming degrees from two unaccredited degree suppliers. These stories helped show how common the practice of using bogus educational credentials is. 

The West Linn case revolved around Galle's acquisition of a so-called "degree" from an entity that does business under the name "Redding University." Some people have trouble grasping the fact that Redding University does not exist, referring to its list of programs and online delivery even while calling it a possible diploma mill. In fact, there is no such thing as Redding University. It's simply a name given by its owner to a business that sells fake college degrees. It has no programs or "nontraditional delivery" mode, let alone faculty. 

In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees. All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments. That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur. Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years. 

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe. All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid. Use of such so-called "degrees" in Oregon, Washington and many other states is illegal. 

The difference between the Galle case (a fake degree bought from a fake college) and the Colvin case is that Colvin acquired two of his degrees from entities that had the legal authority to issue degrees (one operated in Hawaii and one in Switzerland and various small islands) but had no accreditation or national recognition. Under Oregon law, such degrees can legally be used in the private sector provided that they always carry a disclaimer of accreditation. Colvin, having not used the disclaimer, was asked by the state to either use it or voluntarily cease using the degrees. He chose the latter, and dealt with the situation in a prompt and professional manner once he found out the problem. 

In order for college degrees to have value, their nature must be protected by law. That's why Oregon law restricts their use to those issued by legitimate colleges. The Office of Degree Authorization exists in part to investigate the use on nonstandard degrees and enforce this law. 

For further information see the Office of Degree Authorization website: 

Here's the Top 10 sources of invalid degree reports or inquiries received by ODA: 

Almeda University 
Belford University 
Breyer State University 
Canyon College 
Corllins University 
MUST University 
Rochville University 
Rushmore University 
Washington International University


Yup, only nine schools listed in AC's top ten.  Must be another one of those peculiar government accounting methods.  

Notice how Gollin purports to "quote" the original article at DD but instead adds an extra school in a lame attempt to hide his dear friend's error.  Yet another example of those Princeton ethics.  

Maybe somebody from an unaccredited school can explain to Gollin that it's not really a "quote" if you don't actually quote the original material.  


Hungry Ghost Wrote:
AlanContreras Wrote:In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees.


I disagree with that statement emphatically and unequivocably. 

He seems to think that people require government permission for every private decision and that the public is prohibited from taking any action for which there's no prior authorization.

But here in the United States, that's not how the system works. Liberty ultimately resides with the people and it's the people themselves who are soverign. Power flows from the bottom up, not from the top-down as with absolute Monarchs or the Chinese Party. That's why we have elections to choose government officials and periodically get the opportunity to vote the bastards out. They are our representatives and whatever power they exercise is power that we delegated to them, power that's being wielded in our name. 

The people's representatives might indeed vote to pass laws to regulate various matters that are believed to be in the public interest. And in fact, every state does have some kind of regulations on its books regarding higher education. 

But that doesn't mean that the right originates with the state, to be distributed down to the sheep-like masses as the enlightened leadership sees fit.


Quote:All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments.


So what about university boards of trustees? Church governing bodies in the case of church schools? Presidents, deans and faculty committees? Owners in the case of proprietorial schools? The "exclusively" in that sentence looks like hyperbole.


Quote:That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur.


Harvard never had a royal charter and Constitutional religious exemptions didn't exist in Harvard's early years (not least because the Constitution with its Separation and Free Exercise clauses hadn't even been written yet). There was this thing called the American Revolution that happened during those years somewhere.


Quote:Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years. 

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe.


Alan appears to be trying to invent a new and fundamentally misleading definition of "valid".

A degree diploma is a statement by a university asserting the nature and academic legitimacy of a graduate's education. That doesn't depend in any way on Congress, States or Indian tribes. It does depend on the academic credibiity of the university that awarded the degree. That's an academic criterion and it's why accreditation is so important.


Quote:All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid.


Which neatly replaces academic criteria of 'validity' with political criteria.

Apparently it doesn't matter whether or not a school's program is academically worthless, provided only that the proper level of government authorized it. Nor does it seem to matter whether or not a school's program is thoroughly impressive and academically world-class. Academic considerations suddenly become irrelevant.

This provides perfect justification for the worst off-shore medical schools that plant themselves on remote islands that agree before they even arrive to give them formal approval and forward their names to the WHO in Geneva. Even Saint Regis University would seem to pass the government-validity test, since it clearly had acquired the approval of the government of a soverign state. That was the argument that its representatives made so determinedly at the time and for which they are ridiculed so mercilessly now.

Educational value devolves into empty formalities.

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...f=5&t=7526

Anal's fine work is getting him some warm complements at OregonLive.com too.  Considering how these self-promoters and hacks like to censor the truth, we'll include the comments here in case they disappear later:


SayNoToBigots Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 8:59PM 

A federal court ruled that homosexual Alan Contreras is an anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator. He was required to take remedial defamation law courses as part of another litigation settlement. He has no credibility on this topic. The Galle case did not "revolve" around her Redding degree, but rather the fact that when she completed her candidate information form she claimed a degree when in fact she had no degree. She originally told the investigator that her degree was from accredited San Jose State. The fact that Contreras cannot ascertain these simple facts, or chooses to skew the story with lies, demonstrates his incompetence and utter lack of suitability for the government position he holds. It's time Oregon taxpayers got rid of useless, incompetent liars and bigots like Alan Contreras.




Contreras Lies Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 10:23PM 

Contreras lies about Colvin’s degree. He has a PhD from regionally accredited Golden Gate University. 

Contreras lies when he says Harvard had a "royal charter." This is an easily verifiable fact, but he didn't bother to do even perfunctory research. He just makes it up as he goes along, and expects the gullible public to believe him.

Contreras lies when he says “Degrees…are exclusively controlled by governments.” This guy obviously is an idiot. No wonder he needs remedial legal courses. And he claims to hold a law degree? Maybe he should investigate his law school; they obviously aren’t teaching too much law there.

The former Oregon diploma mill statute was held unconstitutional in the Benson case. If anyone was to challenge it, the new one certainly would be found unconstitutional as well. The only time Contreras even bothers to enforce the new law is if the degree holder is a Christian or a conservative. His arbitrary and capricious law enforcement efforts, much like these public fairy stories he circulates, are based solely on his bias and bigotry. 

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[When he's not writing his gay poetry or bird watching, Alan Contreras--the adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator--likes to share diploma mill fairy tales with the public.

His latest effort is getting the sort of rave reviews you would expect the work of a pathological liar to receive--even at DD!

In fact, Hungry Ghost's deconstruction of Anal's fairy story was so devastating I'm just going to copy his post here after the original story.  Very good work HG.  Let's hope the kkklones read and consider every word, and perhaps there will be fewer of them as a result.


Quote:Diploma mills: Lessons from the Galle and Colvin cases

Published: Monday, July 19, 2010, 8:00 AM

by Anal Contreras

Two interesting cases covered by the media in recent weeks have brought some attention to the problem of degrees from diploma mills. The Oregonian's excellent coverage of the Patti Galle case in West Linn brings some helpful visibility to the problem of fake degrees. The Bend Bulletin discovered that Clark Colvin, a Republican candidate for governor, was claiming degrees from two unaccredited degree suppliers. These stories helped show how common the practice of using bogus educational credentials is. 

The West Linn case revolved around Galle's acquisition of a so-called "degree" from an entity that does business under the name "Redding University." Some people have trouble grasping the fact that Redding University does not exist, referring to its list of programs and online delivery even while calling it a possible diploma mill. In fact, there is no such thing as Redding University. It's simply a name given by its owner to a business that sells fake college degrees. It has no programs or "nontraditional delivery" mode, let alone faculty. 

In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees. All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments. That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur. Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years. 

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe. All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid. Use of such so-called "degrees" in Oregon, Washington and many other states is illegal. 

The difference between the Galle case (a fake degree bought from a fake college) and the Colvin case is that Colvin acquired two of his degrees from entities that had the legal authority to issue degrees (one operated in Hawaii and one in Switzerland and various small islands) but had no accreditation or national recognition. Under Oregon law, such degrees can legally be used in the private sector provided that they always carry a disclaimer of accreditation. Colvin, having not used the disclaimer, was asked by the state to either use it or voluntarily cease using the degrees. He chose the latter, and dealt with the situation in a prompt and professional manner once he found out the problem. 

In order for college degrees to have value, their nature must be protected by law. That's why Oregon law restricts their use to those issued by legitimate colleges. The Office of Degree Authorization exists in part to investigate the use on nonstandard degrees and enforce this law. 

For further information see the Office of Degree Authorization website: 

Here's the Top 10 sources of invalid degree reports or inquiries received by ODA: 

Almeda University 
Belford University 
Breyer State University 
Canyon College 
Corllins University 
MUST University 
Rochville University 
Rushmore University 
Washington International University


Yup, only nine schools listed in AC's top ten.  Must be another one of those peculiar government accounting methods.  

Notice how Gollin purports to "quote" the original article at DD but instead adds an extra school in a lame attempt to hide his dear friend's error.  Yet another example of those Princeton ethics.  

Maybe somebody from an unaccredited school can explain to Gollin that it's not really a "quote" if you don't actually quote the original material.  


Hungry Ghost Wrote:
AlanContreras Wrote:In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees.


I disagree with that statement emphatically and unequivocably. 

He seems to think that people require government permission for every private decision and that the public is prohibited from taking any action for which there's no prior authorization.

But here in the United States, that's not how the system works. Liberty ultimately resides with the people and it's the people themselves who are soverign. Power flows from the bottom up, not from the top-down as with absolute Monarchs or the Chinese Party. That's why we have elections to choose government officials and periodically get the opportunity to vote the bastards out. They are our representatives and whatever power they exercise is power that we delegated to them, power that's being wielded in our name. 

The people's representatives might indeed vote to pass laws to regulate various matters that are believed to be in the public interest. And in fact, every state does have some kind of regulations on its books regarding higher education. 

But that doesn't mean that the right originates with the state, to be distributed down to the sheep-like masses as the enlightened leadership sees fit.


Quote:All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments.


So what about university boards of trustees? Church governing bodies in the case of church schools? Presidents, deans and faculty committees? Owners in the case of proprietorial schools? The "exclusively" in that sentence looks like hyperbole.


Quote:That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur.


Harvard never had a royal charter and Constitutional religious exemptions didn't exist in Harvard's early years (not least because the Constitution with its Separation and Free Exercise clauses hadn't even been written yet). There was this thing called the American Revolution that happened during those years somewhere.


Quote:Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years. 

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe.


Alan appears to be trying to invent a new and fundamentally misleading definition of "valid".

A degree diploma is a statement by a university asserting the nature and academic legitimacy of a graduate's education. That doesn't depend in any way on Congress, States or Indian tribes. It does depend on the academic credibiity of the university that awarded the degree. That's an academic criterion and it's why accreditation is so important.


Quote:All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid.


Which neatly replaces academic criteria of 'validity' with political criteria.

Apparently it doesn't matter whether or not a school's program is academically worthless, provided only that the proper level of government authorized it. Nor does it seem to matter whether or not a school's program is thoroughly impressive and academically world-class. Academic considerations suddenly become irrelevant.

This provides perfect justification for the worst off-shore medical schools that plant themselves on remote islands that agree before they even arrive to give them formal approval and forward their names to the WHO in Geneva. Even Saint Regis University would seem to pass the government-validity test, since it clearly had acquired the approval of the government of a soverign state. That was the argument that its representatives made so determinedly at the time and for which they are ridiculed so mercilessly now.

Educational value devolves into empty formalities.

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...f=5&t=7526

Anal's fine work is getting him some warm complements at OregonLive.com too.  Considering how these self-promoters and hacks like to censor the truth, we'll include the comments here in case they disappear later:


SayNoToBigots Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 8:59PM 

A federal court ruled that homosexual Alan Contreras is an anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator. He was required to take remedial defamation law courses as part of another litigation settlement. He has no credibility on this topic. The Galle case did not "revolve" around her Redding degree, but rather the fact that when she completed her candidate information form she claimed a degree when in fact she had no degree. She originally told the investigator that her degree was from accredited San Jose State. The fact that Contreras cannot ascertain these simple facts, or chooses to skew the story with lies, demonstrates his incompetence and utter lack of suitability for the government position he holds. It's time Oregon taxpayers got rid of useless, incompetent liars and bigots like Alan Contreras.




Contreras Lies Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 10:23PM 

Contreras lies about Colvin’s degree. He has a PhD from regionally accredited Golden Gate University. 

Contreras lies when he says Harvard had a "royal charter." This is an easily verifiable fact, but he didn't bother to do even perfunctory research. He just makes it up as he goes along, and expects the gullible public to believe him.

Contreras lies when he says “Degrees…are exclusively controlled by governments.” This guy obviously is an idiot. No wonder he needs remedial legal courses. And he claims to hold a law degree? Maybe he should investigate his law school; they obviously aren’t teaching too much law there.

The former Oregon diploma mill statute was held unconstitutional in the Benson case. If anyone was to challenge it, the new one certainly would be found unconstitutional as well. The only time Contreras even bothers to enforce the new law is if the degree holder is a Christian or a conservative. His arbitrary and capricious law enforcement efforts, much like these public fairy stories he circulates, are based solely on his bias and bigotry. 

]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Quinn's latest venture</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=889</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:23:16 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=889</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In case anyone cared what Quinn has been up to.

Quinn Tyler Jackson - Chied Scientist

He looks and sounds as arrogant as ever. At least he's not marrying fags like DesElms.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In case anyone cared what Quinn has been up to.

Quinn Tyler Jackson - Chied Scientist

He looks and sounds as arrogant as ever. At least he's not marrying fags like DesElms.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>More UIUC Anti-Catholic Bigotry</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=886</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:17:10 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=886</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs

Quote:Published July 09, 2010 | Associated Press

URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral. ...

Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism

Quote:Monday, July 12, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST)

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.

“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.” ...

ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.


Long timers on these discussion boards are probably not the least bit surprised to read about new allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry at George Gollin's employer, U of Illinois.  His wife, Melanie Loots, was at the center of a similar controversy back in 2005:


Quote:UIUC Administrator Slurs Catholics

Ruth Watkins    View profile   Jul 19 2005, 10:05 am 

A University of Illinois administrator has used the term "Papists" to publicly slur the Roman Catholic religion, and has belittled its religious customs as "dirty." 

Melanie J. Loots, UIUC's Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, has been quoted in public internet documents belittling Catholicism and insulting its rites and customs. Loots is the wife of radical socialist UIUC professor George Gollin-Loots, best known for his vicious public criticisms of the Bush administration. 

The offensive statements were included in documents posted on the internet by the Loots' daughter, Cordelia Rose Loots, who attends University Laboratory High School, a remedial institution located on the Urbana-Champagne campus. (http://themagnetwomanprophecies.blogspot.com/) 

The revelations of public use of the religious slur "Papists" by a public university administrator have shocked Roman Catholics throughout the world. Why does UIUC allow administrators and faculty to attack Catholics and Catholicism with impunity? 

Is there a double standard at UIUC? And if so, for whom? Shouldn't, e.g., Jews, socialists, and lesbians be held to the same standards of conduct as everyone else? Why is the university administration singling out Catholics for these vicious, hateful slurs? 

Roman Catholics are demanding that University President B. Joseph White, UIUC Chancellor Richard H. Herman, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and the Illinois Attorney General, investigate these hateful acts and words, and take appropriate action against the people responsible. Roman Catholics believe they should be free to attend this public, tax-supported institution without fear of cruel, bigoted attacks, and particularly not by university administrators or faculty, individually or acting in concert. 


This is how it works at UIUC.  Merely mentioning 2,000 year old religious teachings is hate speech, but bigots like UIUC administrator Loots can insult Catholics as "Papists" and denigrate their sacred rituals as "dirty" with impunity.  

Even if Dr. Kenneth Howell is reinstated, how will the anti-Catholic bigotry at UIUC ever be put to an end unless bigots like George Gollin and Melanie Loots are fired?  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs

Quote:Published July 09, 2010 | Associated Press

URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral. ...

Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism

Quote:Monday, July 12, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST)

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.

“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.” ...

ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.


Long timers on these discussion boards are probably not the least bit surprised to read about new allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry at George Gollin's employer, U of Illinois.  His wife, Melanie Loots, was at the center of a similar controversy back in 2005:


Quote:UIUC Administrator Slurs Catholics

Ruth Watkins    View profile   Jul 19 2005, 10:05 am 

A University of Illinois administrator has used the term "Papists" to publicly slur the Roman Catholic religion, and has belittled its religious customs as "dirty." 

Melanie J. Loots, UIUC's Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, has been quoted in public internet documents belittling Catholicism and insulting its rites and customs. Loots is the wife of radical socialist UIUC professor George Gollin-Loots, best known for his vicious public criticisms of the Bush administration. 

The offensive statements were included in documents posted on the internet by the Loots' daughter, Cordelia Rose Loots, who attends University Laboratory High School, a remedial institution located on the Urbana-Champagne campus. (http://themagnetwomanprophecies.blogspot.com/) 

The revelations of public use of the religious slur "Papists" by a public university administrator have shocked Roman Catholics throughout the world. Why does UIUC allow administrators and faculty to attack Catholics and Catholicism with impunity? 

Is there a double standard at UIUC? And if so, for whom? Shouldn't, e.g., Jews, socialists, and lesbians be held to the same standards of conduct as everyone else? Why is the university administration singling out Catholics for these vicious, hateful slurs? 

Roman Catholics are demanding that University President B. Joseph White, UIUC Chancellor Richard H. Herman, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and the Illinois Attorney General, investigate these hateful acts and words, and take appropriate action against the people responsible. Roman Catholics believe they should be free to attend this public, tax-supported institution without fear of cruel, bigoted attacks, and particularly not by university administrators or faculty, individually or acting in concert. 


This is how it works at UIUC.  Merely mentioning 2,000 year old religious teachings is hate speech, but bigots like UIUC administrator Loots can insult Catholics as "Papists" and denigrate their sacred rituals as "dirty" with impunity.  

Even if Dr. Kenneth Howell is reinstated, how will the anti-Catholic bigotry at UIUC ever be put to an end unless bigots like George Gollin and Melanie Loots are fired?  ]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nullify Fed Higher Ed Tyranny</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=884</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:24:04 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=884</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Although this article does not specifically address education issues, it certainly offers another weapon to use in the battle against federal centralization and standardization of higher education.  The feds and the higher ed cartel want to control all higher education and eliminate state approved degrees.  States must fight back against the government monopoly, or face the stultifying uniformity of statist dogma and methodology, all financed by confiscatory taxing schemes.


Quote:The Right To Nullify This Government 

by  Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 
07/13/2010 

Every couple of years the same drearily predictable charade repeats itself.  This time we’re really going to limit government!  Or so they tell us.  We on the Right then dutifully compose our letters to the editor, attend rallies, and vote for candidates without whom, we are breathlessly assured, we shall all revert instantly to barbarism.  And no matter who wins, the federal government grows and grows.  The Right gets a bunch of pretty speeches, and the Left gets the victories.

The passive approach of crossing our fingers and hoping Washington will follow the Constitution has not worked.  The only surprising thing about it is that anyone could have expected it to work in the first place.  It is long past time for those of us who want to confine the federal government to its constitutional limits to try something different.

The time has come to revisit nullification, the quintessentially American mode of resistance against federal lawlessness that Thomas Jefferson urged as an essential ingredient of our political system.  In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson insisted that the states needed a way to defend themselves against unconstitutional exercises of power by the federal government.  Jefferson’s fear was that if the federal government had a monopoly on defining the scope of its own powers, it would be constantly discovering new ones.  Likewise, James Madison urged in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.  (The reader will not be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton held no White House soiree in honor of the two hundredth anniversary of these documents in 1998.)

These principles were used for honorable purposes throughout antebellum American history.  Virginia and Kentucky used them on behalf of free speech.  The New England states employed them against unconstitutional searches and seizures.  Numerous northern states used them against fugitive slave laws, provisions of which they considered unconstitutional notwithstanding the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause.  More than six decades after Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Kentucky Resolutions, the legislature of Wisconsin quoted them word for word in defense of its defiance of such laws.

Do American schoolchildren read about any of this?  The question answers itself.  They are about as likely to read that I, Tom Woods, am the king of England. 

But all of a sudden, out of the clear blue, nullification is back.  Fiscal conservatives and civil libertarians joined hands in 2005 to oppose the REAL ID Act, which involved the centralization and standardization of identification procedures.  They had no idea how successful they would be.  Two dozen states pledged to defy the law.  Stung by this degree of resistance, the federal government gave up trying to enforce the Act.

Now, states are banding together to devise resistance measures against Obamacare, cap and trade, and a whole raft of constitutionally offensive legislation.  Several states have already instituted Firearms Freedom Acts, which pledge the state to prevent the enforcement of federal gun regulations when the guns in question have never entered interstate commerce.  (Color me skeptical that the recent Supreme Court decision means Americans’ Second Amendment rights are safe forever.) 

So far, most conservative radio and television hosts have shied away from the issue.  That’s a shame, to be sure, but it doesn’t change much.  The Tea Party folks are going to nullify with or without them.  Within six months these same media personalities will be huffing and puffing to catch up with what has been going on right under their noses. 

But you, dear reader, ought to get in on the ground floor.  The Tenth Amendment Center, for example, is sponsoring a tour of America called Nullify Now! (NullifyNow.com), which will bring these important ideas to major American cities and force them back into the American political discussion where they belong.  My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, gives you all the ammunition you need to understand and defend nullification as an essential defense mechanism for a free people.  

And my “Interview with a Zombie” YouTube video shows you how the mainstream media will handle the issue, and how we should respond.

The rebirth of nullification is not welcome news to everyone.  MSNBC and the New York Times do not want us to say or do these things.  They like the situation just the way it is: we make lots of noise, and they rack up the victories.  They are happy if we persist in the same failed and flawed strategy that has gotten us exactly nowhere.  I for one would prefer not to give them the satisfaction.

It’s fine to hold conferences, write letters to the editor, and sign petitions.  But at some point it becomes morally (and practically) necessary to do more than just wring our hands about the behavior of the federal government.  At some point we in our states must say: we are not going to do it.  Never did I suspect that the American people would grow angry and politically aware enough to put these great principles back on the table.  Ideas I once covered as a historian I am now discussing as a commentator on current events. This is the healthiest development in American politics I have seen in my life. Everyone reading these words owes it to the cause of freedom to be a part of it. We have been played for fools long enough.

Editor’s Note:
Take the time to explore Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Mike P.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Although this article does not specifically address education issues, it certainly offers another weapon to use in the battle against federal centralization and standardization of higher education.  The feds and the higher ed cartel want to control all higher education and eliminate state approved degrees.  States must fight back against the government monopoly, or face the stultifying uniformity of statist dogma and methodology, all financed by confiscatory taxing schemes.


Quote:The Right To Nullify This Government 

by  Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 
07/13/2010 

Every couple of years the same drearily predictable charade repeats itself.  This time we’re really going to limit government!  Or so they tell us.  We on the Right then dutifully compose our letters to the editor, attend rallies, and vote for candidates without whom, we are breathlessly assured, we shall all revert instantly to barbarism.  And no matter who wins, the federal government grows and grows.  The Right gets a bunch of pretty speeches, and the Left gets the victories.

The passive approach of crossing our fingers and hoping Washington will follow the Constitution has not worked.  The only surprising thing about it is that anyone could have expected it to work in the first place.  It is long past time for those of us who want to confine the federal government to its constitutional limits to try something different.

The time has come to revisit nullification, the quintessentially American mode of resistance against federal lawlessness that Thomas Jefferson urged as an essential ingredient of our political system.  In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson insisted that the states needed a way to defend themselves against unconstitutional exercises of power by the federal government.  Jefferson’s fear was that if the federal government had a monopoly on defining the scope of its own powers, it would be constantly discovering new ones.  Likewise, James Madison urged in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.  (The reader will not be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton held no White House soiree in honor of the two hundredth anniversary of these documents in 1998.)

These principles were used for honorable purposes throughout antebellum American history.  Virginia and Kentucky used them on behalf of free speech.  The New England states employed them against unconstitutional searches and seizures.  Numerous northern states used them against fugitive slave laws, provisions of which they considered unconstitutional notwithstanding the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause.  More than six decades after Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Kentucky Resolutions, the legislature of Wisconsin quoted them word for word in defense of its defiance of such laws.

Do American schoolchildren read about any of this?  The question answers itself.  They are about as likely to read that I, Tom Woods, am the king of England. 

But all of a sudden, out of the clear blue, nullification is back.  Fiscal conservatives and civil libertarians joined hands in 2005 to oppose the REAL ID Act, which involved the centralization and standardization of identification procedures.  They had no idea how successful they would be.  Two dozen states pledged to defy the law.  Stung by this degree of resistance, the federal government gave up trying to enforce the Act.

Now, states are banding together to devise resistance measures against Obamacare, cap and trade, and a whole raft of constitutionally offensive legislation.  Several states have already instituted Firearms Freedom Acts, which pledge the state to prevent the enforcement of federal gun regulations when the guns in question have never entered interstate commerce.  (Color me skeptical that the recent Supreme Court decision means Americans’ Second Amendment rights are safe forever.) 

So far, most conservative radio and television hosts have shied away from the issue.  That’s a shame, to be sure, but it doesn’t change much.  The Tea Party folks are going to nullify with or without them.  Within six months these same media personalities will be huffing and puffing to catch up with what has been going on right under their noses. 

But you, dear reader, ought to get in on the ground floor.  The Tenth Amendment Center, for example, is sponsoring a tour of America called Nullify Now! (NullifyNow.com), which will bring these important ideas to major American cities and force them back into the American political discussion where they belong.  My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, gives you all the ammunition you need to understand and defend nullification as an essential defense mechanism for a free people.  

And my “Interview with a Zombie” YouTube video shows you how the mainstream media will handle the issue, and how we should respond.

The rebirth of nullification is not welcome news to everyone.  MSNBC and the New York Times do not want us to say or do these things.  They like the situation just the way it is: we make lots of noise, and they rack up the victories.  They are happy if we persist in the same failed and flawed strategy that has gotten us exactly nowhere.  I for one would prefer not to give them the satisfaction.

It’s fine to hold conferences, write letters to the editor, and sign petitions.  But at some point it becomes morally (and practically) necessary to do more than just wring our hands about the behavior of the federal government.  At some point we in our states must say: we are not going to do it.  Never did I suspect that the American people would grow angry and politically aware enough to put these great principles back on the table.  Ideas I once covered as a historian I am now discussing as a commentator on current events. This is the healthiest development in American politics I have seen in my life. Everyone reading these words owes it to the cause of freedom to be a part of it. We have been played for fools long enough.

Editor’s Note:
Take the time to explore Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Mike P.

]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Clayton Crumbles, Bear Boasts</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=882</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:35:30 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=882</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Bear accepts responsibility for starting yet another failed/unscrupulous enterprise: 

Quote:I agree with Chip. Wonderful news. In a backhanded way, I bear some responsibility for this operation. During the two years I lived in Tennessee (1986-88], I used to get regular phone calls from Lloyd Clayton, asking for advice on how to start a school. It became clear to me that his interest was far more in the direction of profitability than academics, and our discussions ended. And then there were all those full-page color ads in health and nutrition and new age publications touting Clayton as one of the pioneers of distance and online education. For many years, Clayton's schools had a private deal with Alabama authorities: they would leave him alone as long as he did not accept any students living in Alabama. [Very much like what Kennedy-Western had in California. Wonder if there are other examples?]

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/distance-le...-down.html

As usual, he confesses and immediately denies.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Bear accepts responsibility for starting yet another failed/unscrupulous enterprise: 

Quote:I agree with Chip. Wonderful news. In a backhanded way, I bear some responsibility for this operation. During the two years I lived in Tennessee (1986-88], I used to get regular phone calls from Lloyd Clayton, asking for advice on how to start a school. It became clear to me that his interest was far more in the direction of profitability than academics, and our discussions ended. And then there were all those full-page color ads in health and nutrition and new age publications touting Clayton as one of the pioneers of distance and online education. For many years, Clayton's schools had a private deal with Alabama authorities: they would leave him alone as long as he did not accept any students living in Alabama. [Very much like what Kennedy-Western had in California. Wonder if there are other examples?]

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/distance-le...-down.html

As usual, he confesses and immediately denies.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Support SB 203--Kill Internet Porn</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=879</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:19:20 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=879</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Pedophile-pandering internet pornographer Thomas "Chip" White is about to be legislated out of business in California.  Senate Bill 203 has unanimously passed the state assembly's public safety committee and will go to the assembly floor for approval.  The bill expands the definition of “distribute” to include “making available for access or possession over the internet."

Child Pornography Legislation Unanimously Clears Assembly Policy Committee


Quote:6/22/2010

Senator Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) announced unanimous passage of Senate Bill 203 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. SB 203 would make it a felony to transmit or share child pornography over the Internet. 

“I am heartened to see some consensus on this important issue. Senate Bill 203 sends a clear message to child pornographers that sharing sexually explicit images of children over the internet will not be tolerated in California,” said Harman. 

Senate Bill 203 addresses the issue of file-sharing over the internet. Currently, Penal Code Chapter 7.5 relative to child pornography completely ignores peer-to-peer file transfers which are an increasingly popular method of file-sharing over the internet. 

“SB 203 goes after pedophiles that enable the “share” function in their peer-to-peer program when they send downloaded images of child pornography. This essentially makes the images available to millions of internet viewers,” said Harman. “We can not forget these children are victims of sexual exploitation. Stopping millions of millions of people from viewing the images will never undo the reprehensible effects of sexual exploitation, but it is a step in the right direction.” 

Proof that a suspect made downloaded images available for distribution to others via peer-to-peer file transfer is typically found in a forensic examination of a suspect’s computer. When a forensic examination shows that a suspect possessed a particular image of child sexual exploitation, and finds that the image is located in a “shared” folder and that the “share” function of the particular peer-to-peer program is enabled, that individual has made the image available for distribution. Because measuring peer-to-peer traffic on the internet is so difficult, there is simply no way to tell how many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of users actually received that file.

If enacted, Senate Bill 203 would amend the definition of “distribute,” as used in Chapter 7.5, to include “making available for access or possession over the internet.” SB 203 protects California’s children by ensuring that pedophiles are punished for the distribution of child pornography.

Senate Bill 203 will now go to the Assembly floor for final approval.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pedophile-pandering internet pornographer Thomas "Chip" White is about to be legislated out of business in California.  Senate Bill 203 has unanimously passed the state assembly's public safety committee and will go to the assembly floor for approval.  The bill expands the definition of “distribute” to include “making available for access or possession over the internet."

Child Pornography Legislation Unanimously Clears Assembly Policy Committee


Quote:6/22/2010

Senator Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) announced unanimous passage of Senate Bill 203 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. SB 203 would make it a felony to transmit or share child pornography over the Internet. 

“I am heartened to see some consensus on this important issue. Senate Bill 203 sends a clear message to child pornographers that sharing sexually explicit images of children over the internet will not be tolerated in California,” said Harman. 

Senate Bill 203 addresses the issue of file-sharing over the internet. Currently, Penal Code Chapter 7.5 relative to child pornography completely ignores peer-to-peer file transfers which are an increasingly popular method of file-sharing over the internet. 

“SB 203 goes after pedophiles that enable the “share” function in their peer-to-peer program when they send downloaded images of child pornography. This essentially makes the images available to millions of internet viewers,” said Harman. “We can not forget these children are victims of sexual exploitation. Stopping millions of millions of people from viewing the images will never undo the reprehensible effects of sexual exploitation, but it is a step in the right direction.” 

Proof that a suspect made downloaded images available for distribution to others via peer-to-peer file transfer is typically found in a forensic examination of a suspect’s computer. When a forensic examination shows that a suspect possessed a particular image of child sexual exploitation, and finds that the image is located in a “shared” folder and that the “share” function of the particular peer-to-peer program is enabled, that individual has made the image available for distribution. Because measuring peer-to-peer traffic on the internet is so difficult, there is simply no way to tell how many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of users actually received that file.

If enacted, Senate Bill 203 would amend the definition of “distribute,” as used in Chapter 7.5, to include “making available for access or possession over the internet.” SB 203 protects California’s children by ensuring that pedophiles are punished for the distribution of child pornography.

Senate Bill 203 will now go to the Assembly floor for final approval.

]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Another John Bear Lie</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=878</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:15:57 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=878</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...1580082173

Click on "Look Inside".

On page 10 John Bear determines that "all of these schools have proper accreditation, whether it be regional, national, or international".

Why, for so many years, has John Bear said in public that there is no such thing as international accreditation? Clearly another deceitful lie to his readers.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...1580082173

Click on "Look Inside".

On page 10 John Bear determines that "all of these schools have proper accreditation, whether it be regional, national, or international".

Why, for so many years, has John Bear said in public that there is no such thing as international accreditation? Clearly another deceitful lie to his readers.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The best IT Certifications?</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=877</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 03:25:51 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=877</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[To my knowledge the Cisco MCNE is the gold standard in IT Certifications. Everyone seems to have the Microsoft MCSE they are like a dime a dozen. The Novel CNE used to be worth a lot but is hardly used anymore.

As for CompTIA's suite, well its ok I guess but its too easy.

Or maybe using Brainbench (which is no longer free but is still cheap) is the better route.

Anyone have any opinions on this?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[To my knowledge the Cisco MCNE is the gold standard in IT Certifications. Everyone seems to have the Microsoft MCSE they are like a dime a dozen. The Novel CNE used to be worth a lot but is hardly used anymore.

As for CompTIA's suite, well its ok I guess but its too easy.

Or maybe using Brainbench (which is no longer free but is still cheap) is the better route.

Anyone have any opinions on this?]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Down With InstantCert...</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=876</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 04:12:25 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=876</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[...and DegreeForum.net!

Has anyone ever been to that site? It never gets mentioned here. They steal &#36;20 a month and provide nothing that a google search couldn't for free. Worse yet, they are a breeding ground for "students" of the Easy Three. That's right! For &#36;20 a month you can learn JUST ENOUGH to pass an array of exams that are already substandard and need I mention EASY?

Here's the trick, the exams are both multiple-choice and written in third grade English. ANYONE can pass them without preparation at all. So what happens? Some ignorant self-abuser gets nervous, shovels out money and receives a truck load of Jurassic Crap, passes the test and then thanks InstantCert for it. Most of the comments in the forum look like:

"I only went through InstantCert once, about 1 hour before the exam. I didn't understand any of the questions, but somehow I passed it. WOW, InstantCert REALLY WORKS!!!"

"I took 20 exams in one week, and I only studied for 5 hours total! I must be smarter than everyone else, because that is 2 years worth of credit, and now I am ready to graduate from a REAL SCHOOL (Excelsior)!!!!!"

"I went to the library and took out 15 books on Psychology and memorized every single word of. Then I spent an hour or two using InstantCert. I failed the test. I know I should have used InstantCert more."

This atrocity is happening right before our very eyes, education is doomed if they are allowed to continue. IC + EC = EZ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[...and DegreeForum.net!

Has anyone ever been to that site? It never gets mentioned here. They steal &#36;20 a month and provide nothing that a google search couldn't for free. Worse yet, they are a breeding ground for "students" of the Easy Three. That's right! For &#36;20 a month you can learn JUST ENOUGH to pass an array of exams that are already substandard and need I mention EASY?

Here's the trick, the exams are both multiple-choice and written in third grade English. ANYONE can pass them without preparation at all. So what happens? Some ignorant self-abuser gets nervous, shovels out money and receives a truck load of Jurassic Crap, passes the test and then thanks InstantCert for it. Most of the comments in the forum look like:

"I only went through InstantCert once, about 1 hour before the exam. I didn't understand any of the questions, but somehow I passed it. WOW, InstantCert REALLY WORKS!!!"

"I took 20 exams in one week, and I only studied for 5 hours total! I must be smarter than everyone else, because that is 2 years worth of credit, and now I am ready to graduate from a REAL SCHOOL (Excelsior)!!!!!"

"I went to the library and took out 15 books on Psychology and memorized every single word of. Then I spent an hour or two using InstantCert. I failed the test. I know I should have used InstantCert more."

This atrocity is happening right before our very eyes, education is doomed if they are allowed to continue. IC + EC = EZ]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Another Gollin Meltdown</title>
			<link>http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=875</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:44:45 +0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=875</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Awwww...what's da matta, poow widdle Georgie?  Won't the big boys let widdle Georgie pway in their game?  



George Gollin a.k.a. Cogito Ergo Shithead Wrote:You are useless and have done nothing more than to hurt the cause you claim to support with your infantility. 

You render your own points invalid by resorting to ad hominem rather than sticking to the issues. 

http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?ti...07#pid6307

We don't make 'em up.  That's how widdle Georgie sticks to the issues.  "You are useless and infantile, and you argue ad hominem.  Not like me."  And now he can't figure out why his stupid ass got booted out of here.  

So he runs back to DD with his tail between his legs and starts whining about it.  "Bwaaaah!  Somebody I guess runs another forum kicked me off!  Bwaaaah!"

So if the posts were deleted, how is it we can still see them?  Change that diaper Georgie, it's full of Gollin. 
 
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Awwww...what's da matta, poow widdle Georgie?  Won't the big boys let widdle Georgie pway in their game?  



George Gollin a.k.a. Cogito Ergo Shithead Wrote:You are useless and have done nothing more than to hurt the cause you claim to support with your infantility. 

You render your own points invalid by resorting to ad hominem rather than sticking to the issues. 

http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?ti...07#pid6307

We don't make 'em up.  That's how widdle Georgie sticks to the issues.  "You are useless and infantile, and you argue ad hominem.  Not like me."  And now he can't figure out why his stupid ass got booted out of here.  

So he runs back to DD with his tail between his legs and starts whining about it.  "Bwaaaah!  Somebody I guess runs another forum kicked me off!  Bwaaaah!"

So if the posts were deleted, how is it we can still see them?  Change that diaper Georgie, it's full of Gollin. 
 
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>