Don't Quote John Bear !!

[Randall Flagg]

Here is a guy (Straittalk) who has a copy of Bears' Guide. He is saying positive things about Adam Smith University and quoting John Bear's positive statements in the guide. The gang is attacking Straittalk, Bear takes offense concerning the accurate quotations from his book, so he rips into Straittalk. It's a course of events we have seen many times. The gang bashes and Bear helps to knife one of his paying customers.  

Straittalk has just said that he has seen nothing in the guide negative about ASU.

"Ok, Here's some. Adam Smith is run from a convenience address in Hawaii, by its owner who lives in New York. Formerly it used a mail service in Louisiana, until Louisiana laws toughened in 1994. Accreditation has been claimed from the dreadful World Association of Universities and Colleges, as well as several other unrecognized agencies. From my understanding of the new and tougher school law, I do not see how Adam Smith can be operating legally there, because of the requirement of having 25 full-time resident students in Hawaii. To the best of my knowledge, neither the credits nor the degrees of Adam Smith have ever been accepted by any University with proper (GAAP) accreditation. This is not new information; it is what I have believed and written for quite a few years."
--John Bear--AED--Feb. 2000

So John Says he knew about the:
Convenience Address
Mail Service in Louisiana
False Claims to Accreditation
Says he doesn't think it is legal
Little or no acceptance of its degrees

Most pointedly he says he knew and wrote about it for "Quite"  a few years.

Ok, then why did he list it as one of the good schools in America?
College Degrees by Mail-100 Good Schools that offer Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorates and Law Degrees by Home Study
By John Bear, Ph.D. -1995-page 58

Now this guy buys the Bear Guide, reads it, then quotes it and John Bear has a hissy fit. Why? one might ask. How is it so terrible to accurately quote an author, believe that the author was telling the truth, had great experience and knowledge, and would certainly be the kind of man who would stand by his statements.

Well, Straittalk, I guess you were wrong.

You cannot quote a man who does not believe in what he says or even bothers to be sure he is accurate. John was just selling the guide, he didn't know nor care if it was accurate. What Bear wrote in the guides and said at AED are not the same, not even close.  One can only wonder how a man can look you in the eye and say, I DON'T BELIVE WHAT I wrote and you were wrong to quote me. It's all your fault.  

Once again John blames the buyer for what he SOLD.

[Randall Flagg]

Bear has attacked me for quoting him. He hates for people to be reminded that he told it the way he now says was all wrong. It seems we made the mistake of:
1-Buying Bear's guides
2-Believing what he wrote
3-Agreeing with him
4-Following his advice
5-Quoting him

My God, what horrible people we are.

[Little Arminius]

A new poster at DI asked about the accreditation and "current academic situation" of Adam Smith University. Johann, who quietly has become a presence at DD, provided a reasonable response. Will Bear even take the time to add his 2 cents?

DI link on Adam Smith University

[ham]

http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?tid=114

Quote:Marlborough university, the notorious degree mill, used to sell John Bear's guide.
Actually, they said reading the guide was a "must".
See attachment.
Now of course (as John Bear argued ), none would prevent anyone else from buying a token number of copies of his guides for resale.
The evidence we gather here is that Marlborough university kept on selling a certain edition of the guide.
The reason was that -in that particular edition- comments about Marlborough were lenient, growing harsher/more critical in later editions.
The point is: since dr. John Bear included Marlborough, this means he had evaluated them...but if so, how would his opinion change from lenient to very harsh, Marlborough being the same?

[Winston Smith]

This is why Klempner is considered the guru of distance learning.  He takes a zen-like approach to troubling concepts like "the facts" and "the truth."  

Nothing is everything, everything is, nothing is.  Reality is fluid.  Today's "good choice" can easily be tomorrow's "less than wonderful."  Only Klempner knows when, where or how to determine the difference.  And since only Klempner really knows what Klempner really meant, only Klempner is qualified to comment on what Klempner says.

Why think for yourself?  When you have faith in Klempner, you can believe in a reality that has the unlimited potential to change with every new day.  Remember, imagination is stronger than knowledge and dreams are more powerful than facts.  Don't clutter your mind with knowledge when you can live in the Klempner dream world.

[Armando Ramos]

Winston Smith Wrote:This is why Klempner is considered the guru of distance learning.  

Or the Quentin Tarantino of DL.  Wouldn't it be cool if Hitler had died in a burning movie theater?  Who cares if it didn't really happen, makes a neat story.  

Klempner writes the joke first, arranges the "facts" to set it up.  Ha ha, James Kirk, yuh know, like on Star Trek, ha ha, selling fake diplomas.  But his name was Thomas Kirk.  Kinda spoils the joke, eh?  What the hell, just ignore it!

The difference, though, would be that while most people understand that Tarantino's fantasies are works of fiction intended to entertain, they believe Klempner's are works of "research."  So you get, for example, an entire Pedopedia page for "James Kirk" even though the cited news stories correctly show his name as "Thomas J. Kirk II."  Klempner's fantasies become his clones' realities.

[ham]

THAT one was James Tiberius Kirk...

Talking about pedophilia...
Isn't it strange how our rotting society entertains a neurotic relationship with pedophilia as most evil (well, ok, AFTER Nazism and racism, of course ) and in one country they run a "big brother" show with underage people? What about Brooke Shields' famous 'naked child prostitute' pics from the 1970s? Or that rock band whose album had a naked underage girl on cover (still from the 1970s I think)?
In some jurisdictions one may be apprehended and questioned for barely looking at children...but one may watch them in the big brother show?

[Dickie Billericay]

ham Wrote:Or that rock band whose album had a naked underage girl on cover (still from the 1970s I think)?

Just to be clear, aside from still posting at Chip's gay boy porn front, Klempner has no other connection (that we know of) to such activities.

But it was 1969 that Blind Faith released the album to which you refer.  The US version was as below:


The current CD has the original UK cover, with the naughty bits somewhat obscured:



I never heard the story on "the girl," but I always suspected she was one of those 40-year old teenagers, like they used to have on that old "Room 222" TV show.  

[ham]

No, the picture wasn't that one...
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_ISPs...llegations

It was the Scorpions.

[Armando Ramos]

Guess who?



http://www.blogger.com/profile/12942618741182993411

Quote:November 11, 2007

...Four years earlier, another band on the lookout for female talent were Blind Faith, the short-lived supergroup comprising Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Ginger Baker and Rick Grech. Rather than settle for a portrait of four mostly ugly hippies on the sleeve of their self-titled 1969 album, Clapton asked a friend, the photographer Bob Seidemann, to produce a cover shot. Seidemann announced that they should find a nice female virgin, and they ended up with one of the most controversial pop images ever made: an 11-year-old girl with her top off, fondling a futuristic toy aircraft.

Mariora Goschen, now 50 and still with striking curly hair, recalls that she was coerced into posing for the picture. “My sister said, ‘We’ll give you a young horse. Do it!’ We already had loads of horses; we lived in the country, in Suffolk.

The picture was taken in a studio next to the Royal College of Art in London. It took about five minutes. The photographer had persuaded us that I should do it because it was art. At the time, I don’t think I was even aware that I had any breasts. Then we heard it had caused a bit of a stir. Mary Whitehouse went on and on about it, and it was banned in some parts of the world.” The fee for appearing on this No 1 album was £40, and Mariora didn’t get the young filly or stud she had been promised. “But I suppose it paid for some hay and the travelling expenses.”

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/t...870010.ece