03-08-2012, 10:07 PM
(03-08-2012, 05:52 PM)ham Wrote: it is a non what? Come on...I had a hot dog with onion and ketchup for dinner, and you?
I said that getting into trouble crosses both the accredited and non-accredited domain, and depends entirely upon personal and political circumstances.
Nobody got in trouble "solely for possessing a milled degree"...they got in trouble for using it or parading it in a certain way.
The same applies to accredited degrees: Churchill, Hayward, Finkelstein, Faurisson etc.
It is possible to pick apart nearly everything.
An accredited degree is no safety belt if you cross the party line...and a milled degree isn't necessarily a problem if you toe it.
These names, what are their relevance?
I've been hanging around this subject for a very long time. I can't recall a single instance where the use of an accredited degree got someone into trouble. That was the original premise, and it just doesn't hold up. No one said it was an immunity for unrelated trouble. That would be absurd.