Replies

1. You do not own the internet and if you continue to willfully misrepresent and attack me, I'll respond as I please. Making frivolous threats of "reporting" someone to the moderators for nothing more than embarrassing you in a debate, and blustering about it as if "they" will intervene on your side simply because you ask them to is a sure sign of an internet troll. 2. If you think a "distance learning" school that does all its classes online, has a poor academic reputation, has no visible admission standards to its programs except willingness to pay, has a long history of accreditation problems and accompanying lawsuits, and offers most of its "degrees" in non-recognized and non-traditional fields and specializations is anything other than a degree mill, then you are an even bigger sucker than the fools who shell out thousands of dollars to those places and think they're going to get a six figure job with their fancy new "degree" that's not worth the paper it's printed on. Come to think of it, if you're really that stupid then I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, a secret Nigerian government bank account that I need you to smuggle out of Africa, a doctorate in "life studies" you can earn online, and a vitamin distribution pyramid that can earn you millions...and all you gotta do for everything to be yours is email over your bank account number and your social! 3. Relevant to our own discussion, you have still yet to establish any actual academic credentials of your fake expert, "Dr." Lewinski, to back up his claimed expertise. If you do not like his credentials being challenged you should have chosen your expert more carefully and picked somebody who could withstand the scrutiny that Lewinski's dubious reputation invites. In that area you have only yourself to blame. 4. A general tip: if you intend to devote a large part of your argument to accusing other people of ad hominem personal attacks and other fallacies, you should at least make a pretense of avoiding indulgence in the very same things. It makes you into a hypocrite. 5. Another general tip: don't pick a fight if you're going to whine about it when you get hit back. I have little patience for people who enter into a discussion with guns blazing - as you did - and by impugning the motives of the person they are debating - which you also did to me in your very first post on the Tueller drill - only whine incessantly and now threaten to tattle tale to some anonymous moderator after it became evident you couldn't maintain your original bluster under scrutiny. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I wasn't referring to the moderators, PW. I was referring to criminal statutes regarding electronic harassment, and the tort claims that these universities and Dr. Lewinski would have against you.

I wasn't referring to the moderators, PW. I was referring to criminal statutes regarding electronic harassment, and the tort claims that these universities and Dr. Lewinski would have against you.

1. Surely you know that to sustain such a tort you would have to demonstrate both material harm and some degree of malice on my part, with the added burden of Lewinski being a public figure and thus requiring a higher standard of evidence.

2. You would also have to demonstrate that I said something counterfactual and defamatory about Lewinski. Stating that he got his "doctorate" off the internet is not defamatory because he did indeed obtain his "doctorate" over the internet from a school that grants degrees almost exclusively online. Nothing you have posted here has demonstrated otherwise.

3. Surely you also realize that if you and/or Lewinski were to sue me for pointing out the FACT that he got his "degree" from an internet school, it would immediately permit me to make a lengthy and expensive discovery request from Lewinski that would open virtually his entire education record to court scrutiny, thus revealing detailed information about his claimed academic credentials, or lack thereof, which would assuredly further dampen his credibility as an "expert."

4. What is a PW?

5. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have worked yourself into a frenzied state of emotional delirium over the course of this discussion. You are behaving as if you have been irked on a personal level, and thus answer arguments not with counterarguments but threats both veiled and otherwise, angry personal attacks, willful misrepresentations, and multiple other examples of the very same type of ad hominem blustery you accuse in others, thus only further affirming your palpable hypocrisy.