Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags

Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - Printable Version

+- DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth (https://www.dltruth.com)
+-- Forum: DL Hall of Shame: Individuals (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Nominees, second-stringers, others (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags (/thread-911.html)

Pages: 1 2

Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - WilliamW - 08-24-2010

Bring it on, bitches. If you think you have a case quit playing with your tiny selves, throw down and lawyer up. Then you can learn first hand how anti-SLAPP suit statutes work.

"Free speech rights on a matter of public issue," i.e., this entire discussion board, you ignorant assholes.

Read carefully, you stalking rat turds: "Plaintiffs need to realize that there is a significant downside to filing a frivolous lawsuit aimed at chilling protected speech."

Court awards $55,000 in legal fees to "John Does"

Come on, you little pantywaist jerkoffs, do you feel lucky? Man up or fuck off.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - Armando Ramos - 08-24-2010

WilliamW Wrote:Read carefully, you stalking rat turds

And not even very good stalking rat turds. They think they have figured out that Neil Hayes is really....Neil Hayes. That's a tough one. Rolleyes

But it seems to have taken a lot out of them, because they aren't having much luck with the others. Maybe they should make like The Sphincter next time and round up fifteen friends to help with the guesswork (as if such dumbasses would have fifteen friends)

Yeah, right Vinny, it's all scripted here. Just like your life journey to fame and fortune.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - ham - 08-24-2010

As someone noted there too, we might very well be dealing with Cogito#n+x
The obsession with families under hypothetical threats, the delusion of omnipotence and the diversion of loathing hypothetical racism do point in the same direction...again, not very smart...they accuse other people of posting under a host of aliases, but do so without fail...and with the skills of a 15yo on behavior medications...

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - Armando Ramos - 08-25-2010

ham Wrote:As someone noted there too, we might very well be dealing with Cogito#n+x
The obsession with families under hypothetical threats, the delusion of omnipotence and the diversion of loathing hypothetical racism do point in the same direction...again, not very smart...they accuse other people of posting under a host of aliases, but do so without fail...and with the skills of a 15yo on behavior medications...

Something missing at DD...like our favorite thread? Goose returns from wherever Goose goes, and threads and posters suddenly disappear.

I see why he axed the thread. As you noted Ham, more of the same utter lies that clownish dirtbags like Gollum and Halfman try to pass off as insightful commentary. Even clones have some standards, however minimal.

Not sure why "Michael Dell" got run. He correctly noted the absence of "standards" from accreditation "criteria." Presumably the self-anointed "experts" understand the distinction is not merely semantic, although they no doubt wish people would fall for such sophistry.

Quote:Definition of STANDARD...
4: something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard

However they may be denominated (standards, criteria, principles, etc.), nowhere does the accreditation cartel define any objective measure of the achievement necessary for accreditation.

The distinction is easily illustrated. For example, to qualify for the Boston Marathon one must meet the "designated time standard." For men 34 and under it's 3 hours and 10 minutes. Any potential participant knows what the standard is, the standard is uniformly enforced, and if you are too slow you know exactly how much improvement is necessary to be allowed to participate next time.

If you run it in 3:11 you can't get in by promising to wear a hammer and sickle on your shirt or performing an unnatural act with the race promoter. It's 3:10 or watch it on TV.

Even the cartel admits "the Standards are largely qualitative," i.e., they are not quantitative. In fact, they are wholly arbitrary, lack uniformity and lack any objective system of measurement. E.g.:

Quote:The institution implements and supports a systematic and broad-based approach to the assessment of student learning focused on educational improvement through understanding what and how students are learning through their academic program and, as appropriate, through experiences outside the classroom.

I challenge anyone to find a "standard" capable of measurement in such a statement. That is complete gibberish.

What if, to participate in the Boston Marathon, you needed to "implement and support a systematic and broad-based approach to running 26 miles focused on chronometric improvement through understanding what and how runners are performing in their running program and, as appropriate, through experiences outside the marathon route."

Certain result: chaos without credibility, just like the current accreditation system.

So, "Michael Dell," whoever you are, obviously a point made, and made all too well or you wouldn't have been banned by cartel shills defending their CHEA-riffic house of cards.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - ham - 08-26-2010

I will repeat it again...
immature hollow brains that NEED the internet to establish themselves as SOMEONE, in spite of incessantly braying about how great their job, family, income or sex life is, shall be prepared to get all kinds of publicity, both good and bad...that's life.
Second, if you don't want people to find it, don't leave it all over the place.
Eons ago a bitch complained she started receiving weird phone calls after she placed her phone number in her ICQ profile...and she was terrified when someone threatened to pay her a visit at the address gathered via reverse phone search...
I mean...isn't that asking for it?
Let's be frank...this whole Charles Bronson angle is pretty pathetic...

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - Little Arminius - 08-28-2010

I just returned from a relaxing week at the Jersey Shore with the family (specifically Beach Haven, which I highly recommend if you want to avoid the noisy boardwalk and kitschy concessions that are common in other Shore locations), and looked forward to seeing what bull$hit these geniuses, Chucky and Wikitikitava, had concocted about me. Imagine my suprise when I found out that the entire thread had been deleted!!!

I checked the archives, saw the direction the thread had gone and realized that Gus had no choice but to flush it. Chucky and Wiki, a couple of punks in the most streetwise/jailhouse sense of the term, had already defamed one William Watson Birch by accusing him of being the person behind my nom de plume and threatening to "out" him to members of the religious community. Seeing how Birch is a seminary student in North Carolina and maintains a blog on classical arminianism (that I occasionally visit) to complement his academic pursuits, misidentifying Birch as "Little Arminius" and providing contact information is an egregious act designed to inflict damage to Birch's reputation and perhaps fatally damage his career plans. Let's make no mistake about this, Chucky and Wiki the bitch ass punk posted what they knew was false information which smeared a private citizen who had no involvement with the board in question or the subject area (distance learning).

I'll give Gus Sainz credit (for the third time in 7 years), this time for deleting the thread. Gus understands that he is responsible and potentially liable for the content of posts at his board, especially when it involves defamatory material against a private citizen (Birch) whose reputation could be severely damage by the malicious misrepresentation. Chucky and Wiki tried to smear a private citizen by recklessly disregarding their obligation to check their facts and instead took a shortcut and posted untruths designed only to harm another party.

After Gus deleted the thread and made it be known that he didn't want any similar threads, Chucky and Wiki disappeared. Unfortunately for them, it Birch seeks legal redress, Gus will be required to turn over his IP logs and their perceived anonymity will be history. Some other clown calling himself devilsadvocate started a thread and posted links about an $11 million default libel judgment against some gossip website by a teacher who is also a part-time Bengals cheerleader.

DD thread

Devilsadvocate (along with Chucky and Wiki) may not be able to understand why, but the Cinncinati teacher/cheerleader and William Watson Birch are in the same position. Both were private figures at the time of the alleged defamation and to prevail in litigation would only need to prove that the defendants' posts were untrue, damaging and knowingly false or that the D's demonstrated reckless disregard for the truth. As private citizens they are entitled to greater protection than public figures.

I posit that a number of DL figures, e.g. John Bear, George Gollin, Alan Contreras, etc., would be considered general purpose public figures by virtue of their publications, public positions and high-profiles in the world of distance education. When they post, they do so under their real names, and in the process have become quite well-known in the overall field of higher education.

Other DL figures, e.g. Gus Sainz, Bruce Tait, Gregg DesElms, Steve Foerster, Rich Douglas, etc., would likely be considered limited purpose public figures whose "fame" is restricted to the field of distance learning. Pretty much anyone who posts extensively under their real name in this limited field would fall into the same category.

The downside to being such a public figure is that in addition to meeting the other tests, you also need to prove that the defendant acted with "malice" and intended harm, a substantially higher burden to meet. Personally, I see almost all of the posts at DLT as satire and commentary on the positions taken by the various semi-public accrediting agencies. BTW, satire and political commentary are considered protected speech (for now at least) and fall outside the realm of defamation.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - Winston Smith - 08-28-2010

Little Arminius Wrote:Chucky and Wiki tried to smear a private citizen by recklessly disregarding their obligation to check their facts and instead took a shortcut and posted untruths designed only to harm another party.

All of which is typical of the bullshit that passes for "expert" research at DD. I'd bet the two buttheads are regulars there just using different handles, but the same sleazy methods those dirtbags have been up to since AED days.

And the ultimate fact is that Little Arminius has nothing to do with any "degree mills" or illegal activity, and isn't claiming to be an "expert." Which means that he's just a regular guy sharing his opinions on topical issues as our Founding Fathers intended. They object to his views on freedom (he's for it, they aren't), but that doesn't justify spreading his personal information all over the internet for every mental case and retard to peruse and abuse.

The fact that the idiots got the wrong guy just demonstrates the vicious nature of all the DD stalkers. They don't care whether the crap they post is right or not. It's all just guesswork and suppositions. And that's all it ever has been. They are "experts" in nothing but being total assholes.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - ham - 08-28-2010

As Ham says...BEWARE OF THE INTERNET.
Ham was asked at least a couple of times to grant interviews to the press, allegedly interested in his online activities. Ham always refused and always will, no matter how alluring they make it seem. You never know who these people are, and the thrill of being allowed to scratch your armpits on air does have an underside. Others tried the dooglearse method:"if you don't show me your passport, I am not going to believe it"...Ham says: who cares what you believe, first; and second, you are not going to believe it just because some John Smith, or Pedro Alvarez told you so, right? So it makes no difference. Ham refuses to let internet phlegm ooze out in real life.
The funny thing is, yes, stalkers did identify Ham at least a few times in the past...or so they thought...those people had only something in common, and it all ended there.
It was funny one time to see 2 stalkers fight over who Ham was, each arguing a separate case.

RE: Article for Chucky, Rikishithead and the other DD douchebags - WilliamW - 08-29-2010

Funny how Gollum thinks he knows everything about this board, but he never seems to know WTF is going on with his foul-mouthed lesbian daughter or his papist-hating, mutant lab pig-vending wife.

He was too busy "collaborating" with a perverted anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator, or posting his incompetent speculation, guesswork, and lies on a website run by a gay boy pornographer to notice the bizarre activities in his own home. Too bad he couldn't find 15 nannies to do his work for him, like they did for him at the Dumbass Factory.

More DD spin - Little Arminius - 08-31-2010

Jack Tracey (a/k/a Jack the Kipper), weighed in with his comments. Jack, one of the more astute posters in the various DL fora over the years, has nevertheless been sucked in by George Gollin's (George Dana Gollin, George Gollinsky, Gollum) sleight of hand.

DD thread

George wants to be viewed as a victim; hell, if wouldn't be so inappropriate we could say he had a messianic complex. Isn't it awful convenient that a couple of "newbie" posters appear, post defamatory comments before being censored by Gus and the quickly disappear. Very, very convenient ... perhaps a couple of Gollin friends?