PDA

View Full Version : Moderation situation of SC forum



Scott1981
04-08-2006, 04:13 PM
the problem with closing down the forum is that the frequent SC debates will probably move to another forum. the new threads will most likely start on mua belize because of the merger.

i think ironclad moderation would be the best option over closing the forum.

Nebakanezer
04-08-2006, 04:46 PM
I think closing this forum is the best thing that could be done under the circumstances.

I don't think the situation in the SC forum will improve regardless of the level of moderation.

Instead of waiting until the current advertising campaign is complete, you should probably contact the advertiser to see what they want done. I think they would be willing to discontinue the current campaign, and forego any refund for the advertising, in favor of the forum being closed.

I think all the debate about SCMUA should be moved into the MUA-Belize forum since they are responsible for it now.

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 04:50 PM
I think closing this forum is the best thing that could be done under the circumstances.

I don't think the situation in the SC forum will improve regardless of the level of moderation.

Instead of waiting until the current advertising campaign is complete, you should probably contact the advertiser to see what they want done. I think they would be willing to discontinue the current campaign, and forego any refund for the advertising, in favor of the forum being closed.

its just gonna move to another vmd forum if this one closes. i think strict moderation of this forum should continue.

although there is a lot of bickering going on, there are many students that get great knowledge from this forum. lets face it, if most SC students came on this forum to get info many years ago, quite a few wouldnt be in the mess they are in now.

Nebakanezer
04-08-2006, 04:53 PM
its just gonna move to another vmd forum if this one closes. i think strict moderation of this forum should continue.

although there is a lot of bickering going on, there are many students that get great knowledge from this forum. lets face it, if most SC students came on this forum to get info many years ago, quite a few wouldnt be in the mess they are in now.Hopefully it wouldn't continue onto another forum.

If they won't close this forum they should at least make this a sub-forum of MUA-Belize then, it shouldn't be its own forum any longer.

This place has just become a sore on the butt that is ValueMD.

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 05:01 PM
Hopefully it wouldn't continue onto another forum.

If they won't close this forum they should at least make this a sub-forum of MUA-Belize then, it shouldn't be its own forum any longer.

a sub forum doesnt sound like a bad idea. however, what happens to the SC senegal students since most of those sticking with SC seem to be leaning towards that side of the split.

dt
04-08-2006, 05:10 PM
However, we can't close the forum until the current advertising campaign is completed, which I believe is in June. Therefore, I will ask the current Mods and Supermods to pitch in and oversee the forum in the meantime.


Can you explain the relationship of a forum and advertising?

Nebakanezer
04-08-2006, 05:13 PM
Can you explain the relationship of a forum and advertising?I was kinda wondering about that myself...

Nebakanezer
04-08-2006, 05:13 PM
a sub forum doesnt sound like a bad idea. however, what happens to the SC senegal students since most of those sticking with SC seem to be leaning towards that side of the split. We have started our own forums, so a forum on ValueMD isn't necessarily needed or desired.

Doc
04-08-2006, 05:14 PM
Can you explain the relationship of a forum and advertising?

VMD agreed to display the SC banner on the SC forum for a certain period of time. If we took down the forum before the period was over, we would be in breech of contract. Therefore, that is not an option since we fully intend to honor our commitment.

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 05:16 PM
We have started our own forums, so a forum on ValueMD isn't necessarily needed or desired.

open to the public or secretive?

Nebakanezer
04-08-2006, 05:17 PM
open to the public or secretive? Public. It isn't quite ready for primetime, but should be ready by next week.

Don't get any silly ideas, what has gone on over here will not be tolerated on that forum. It will be very heavily moderated.

###
04-08-2006, 05:17 PM
............

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 05:23 PM
Public. It isn't quite ready for primetime, but should be ready by next week.

Don't get any silly ideas, what has gone on over here will not be tolerated on that forum. It will be very heavily moderated.

i have not been one of the trouble makers in the SC forum.

anyway, thats great that you got a forum in the works. keep me updated.

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 05:25 PM
I think this is an opportunity for valueMD to fix a mistake.

First of all, I think you should consider whether you really need to have a moderator for each forum. I suspect you could easily reduce the number of moderators and have several super-moderators such as teratos, steph, who act as moderators for all of valueMD.

Second, if you do decide to select a moderator for the SC forum, you should pick somebody who is not affiliated with SC. It is a natural conflict of interest for a SC student to moderate the SC forum.

Finally, in watching the forum over the years, you are better off picking moderator who has already graduated or who is at least in their clinical training. These individuals tend to have some perspective and are less likely to engage in promotion.

i nominate DrB for the job. :)

dt
04-08-2006, 05:32 PM
i nominate DrB for the job. :)

no, dont join the dark side...


;-)

###
04-08-2006, 05:40 PM
.............

###
04-08-2006, 05:48 PM
.................

Scott1981
04-08-2006, 05:59 PM
i do like the new software that doc is using to purge multiple account users.

making the SC forum every mods pet project would be the way to go.

microphage
04-08-2006, 06:56 PM
I think this is the wrong approach. This is like closing a highway because you caught some people speeding. Much better to deal with the individual violators than to close the highway. Closing the highway is a ham-fisted approach that inconveniences everyone. Meanwhile, the speeders just drive fast someplace else. valueMD should be more aggressive with those who don't play by the rules -- but leave the forums and threads open.

There is nothing wrong with heated debate --within the TOS.

I agree with DrB on this. Closing this forum wouldn't solve the problem. People would just post the SC topics elsewhere(Either MUA forum or the Relaxing Lounge). And if a totally dead school like Kigezi has an open forum, why not one which is barely dead? (kidding kidding) ;)

The Trifling Jester
04-08-2006, 07:02 PM
Kigezi has closed and still has its own forum on this website. What is the difference between Kigezi and St Chris, other than financial obligations?

-The Trifling Jester

ValuelessMD
04-09-2006, 11:18 AM
..........

sheikh1
04-09-2006, 11:29 AM
I am in favor of moderation!!!

smoohead
04-09-2006, 12:06 PM
Take a look at the "What do MUAB students... (http://www.valuemd.com/medical-university-americas-mua-belize/109538-what-do-muab-students.html)" thread in the MUA-Belize forum. It has already started over there. Some people will start discord no matter what. And for no reason whatsoever! It's not the forum that needs moderation, it's certain users that need to be watched more closely.

AUCMD2006
04-09-2006, 12:32 PM
Take a look at the "What do MUAB students... (http://www.valuemd.com/medical-university-americas-mua-belize/109538-what-do-muab-students.html)" thread in the MUA-Belize forum. It has already started over there. Some people will start discord no matter what. And for no reason whatsoever! It's not the forum that needs moderation, it's certain users that need to be watched more closely.




as long as there is no name calling, threats, etc these forums should stay true to their begining and that is free information. while some moderation is obviously needed to keep it degrading to a network54, "highly moderated" forums will likely just be conduits of propaganda depending on who is moderating.

these forums should stay open, specially the new schools because there really is no other place to get much of this information. would you rely solely on a website from a school any more than one run by that school's student governemnt or 'cheerleaders'? i wouldn't.

microphage
04-09-2006, 01:33 PM
Kigezi has closed and still has its own forum on this website. What is the difference between Kigezi and St Chris, other than financial obligations?

-The Trifling Jester

I KNOW I KNOW!! BTS attended both schools.... (oh wait, u wanted differences) :mad:

empathy
12-18-2006, 09:44 PM
this one too maybe? It's pretty old.

Doc
12-18-2006, 09:51 PM
this one too maybe? It's pretty old.

This forum is still under strict Moderation, so the info still applies.

Azrealist
12-19-2006, 06:49 AM
This forum is still under strict Moderation, so the info still applies.

strict moderation by who? and in what fashion?

there are no facts posted here... (ie there never was a factual relationship between SCIMD and MUA... PL tried to sell something that he wasn't authorized to do... yet people still bring this up as if it was an actual thing that happened)

old out of date links and topics are allowed to be rehashed..

no one with any medical school administration or state medical administrative knowledge is on here...

anytime anyone from the school come on here and actually posts facts.. the trolls come running and attack those people... thats why no one from the school posts here... i'm just here because it was getting rediculous on this site

do i really need to go on?

This forum is about the old school SCCM and the PL past... this entire forum should be lock or archieved as historical only... I'm not sure if you've actually read this forum.. but there has been a change in the school and its actually now call SCIMD...

nice job with the "strict" moderation...

Doc
12-19-2006, 07:25 AM
strict moderation by who? and in what fashion?

there are no facts posted here... (ie there never was a factual relationship between SCIMD and MUA... PL tried to sell something that he wasn't authorized to do... yet people still bring this up as if it was an actual thing that happened)

old out of date links and topics are allowed to be rehashed..

no one with any medical school administration or state medical administrative knowledge is on here...

anytime anyone from the school come on here and actually posts facts.. the trolls come running and attack those people... thats why no one from the school posts here... i'm just here because it was getting rediculous on this site

do i really need to go on?

This forum is about the old school SCCM and the PL past... this entire forum should be lock or archieved as historical only... I'm not sure if you've actually read this forum.. but there has been a change in the school and its actually now call SCIMD...

nice job with the "strict" moderation...

What is meant by "strict" moderation is that a lower tolerance will be given to violators of the Terms of Service (http://www.valuemd.com/disclaimer.php). For example, in other forums, users are sometimes provided with a courtesy PM (not required) to edit their post in order to avoid receiving an infraction. However, in the SC forum, violations will likely result in infractions without the opportunity to edit first.

I think that you're misunderstanding the role of the Moderators. It is NOT the job of the Moderators to ensure the truthfulness of any particular post. The Mods don't care what is written, only how it is written (within the TOS). That is the main difference between censorship and moderation. This site is NOT censored, but it IS moderated.

In addition, the Mods are NOT responsible for monitoring every post on the site. Rather, the users can report any post which they believe is in violation of the TOS. The Moderators will then investigate the reports accordingly.

I hope that helps. But please let me know if you have any further questions.

stephew
12-19-2006, 09:05 AM
i should add that all users agreed to the terms of use here. if they are unacceptable there are other unmoderated forums where no only is the content not moderatred, but the manners are not either.

azskeptic
12-19-2006, 10:02 AM
i should add that all users agreed to the terms of use here. if they are unacceptable there are other unmoderated forums where no only is the content not moderatred, but the manners are not either.for some reason Empathy is calling for the closing of all forums on sc......not sure what that is about. My theory is that people need to be civil and learn it on value md if they haven't already.

Dean

stephew
12-19-2006, 11:14 AM
the triumph of hope over experience. however as far as I am aware admin has no plans to close the forum.
for some reason Empathy is calling for the closing of all forums on sc......not sure what that is about. My theory is that people need to be civil and learn it on value md if they haven't already.

Dean

empathy
12-19-2006, 06:47 PM
I didn't want the threads closed nor the forum. It's the exact opposite. When told St. Chris was going to sue Valuemd...I requested that the school simply try to win their forum back. Anyone can sue and drag people in and out of court...they don't even need a strong case for that, just a boat load of money...but I felt there was a better way. Let's just back off the negative stuff and let the students have their forum back.

The threads I questioned are just old and I didn't feel they should still be tacked up like that. The moderation hasn't been strict here...there's been little if any moderation and no one has cleaned up the forum in a while. People call each other names, etc. I've even seen swear words used.

There was a time when if you posted something negative but truthful about St. Chris you got a warning. And now, I've posted a thread giving students a chance to explain the first three hits new students come across on the web and got a warning??? I was simply trying to give them a chance to explain. They've never been given the floor on these subjects.

Yes, we needed the nay sayers and truth tellers back in the P.L. days but now it's time for everyone to just back off and let the school have its forum back. If not, then the forum should be closed. I believe they are trying really trying to turn things around at the school and we should help and not hinder them.

Once we were here for all the right reasons...everyone should ask themselves are we still??? Are we doing the right thing here or have we simply become a bunch of know it all busy bodies hanging out somewhere we don't belong. I don't want to get sued by this school...do you???

:lurking:

maximillian genossa
12-19-2006, 11:47 PM
"I believe they are trying really trying to turn things around at the school and we should help and not hinder them. "

Finally, some good wise words of advise. I second that. Let them turn around the school , after all isn't that one of the basic principles of business management and free markets? If given the opportunity to rebuild, then do so, and everyone else, don't sabotage what seems to be a legitimate effort to rebuild.

There is a big difference between being part of a problem and part of a solution, for what I have read here, NOBODY in this forum is nearby of being not even a shadow of part of the solution, myself included, NOBODY. I challenege anyone who thinks he or she is to come forward and logically defend his or her position on why they believe they are not being part of a pervasive problem: sabotage. Call me a SC defender, whatever, I do not give a rat's tail, besides arguments are not won by name calling.

"Once we were here for all the right reasons...everyone should ask themselves are we still??? Are we doing the right thing here or have we simply become a bunch of know it all busy bodies hanging out somewhere we don't belong. I don't want to get sued by this school...do you???"

In other words, folks it is about time to sit down and think. Let these folks rebuild, if you want to challenge them, take them to court, last time I checked this is not a court. "Oh, but the truth must come out" PLEASE! The truth according to whom? So much for truth, this thing is still going on. Give me a break. Give yourselves a break.

:-jumprope





I didn't want the threads closed nor the forum. It's the exact opposite. When told St. Chris was going to sue Valuemd...I requested that the school simply try to win their forum back. Anyone can sue and drag people in and out of court...they don't even need a strong case for that, just a boat load of money...but I felt there was a better way. Let's just back off the negative stuff and let the students have their forum back.

The threads I questioned are just old and I didn't feel they should still be tacked up like that. The moderation hasn't been strict here...there's been little if any moderation and no one has cleaned up the forum in a while. People call each other names, etc. I've even seen swear words used.

There was a time when if you posted something negative but truthful about St. Chris you got a warning. And now, I've posted a thread giving students a chance to explain the first three hits new students come across on the web and got a warning??? I was simply trying to give them a chance to explain. They've never been given the floor on these subjects.

Yes, we needed the nay sayers and truth tellers back in the P.L. days but now it's time for everyone to just back off and let the school have its forum back. If not, then the forum should be closed. I believe they are trying really trying to turn things around at the school and we should help and not hinder them.

Once we were here for all the right reasons...everyone should ask themselves are we still??? Are we doing the right thing here or have we simply become a bunch of know it all busy bodies hanging out somewhere we don't belong. I don't want to get sued by this school...do you???

:lurking:

empathy
12-20-2006, 06:39 AM
about Gen's post is that we are friends. Talk about being open minded. The entire time I was making comments against St. Chris Gen never criticized me. I had no idea he felt like this. He never tried to change my mind on anything....just let me have my say. Silently I guess, he agreed to disagree and still be friends. What a great example of a wise human. We should all follow his lead.

pruritis_ani
12-20-2006, 08:08 AM
I am all for them rebuilding. That would be great. However, there are two large issues. First of all, potential students should avoid schools that are rebuilding for a variety of reasons. Second of all, history tends to repeat itself.

So, if the school can manage to attract students, and do well, great. But, these students really will be nothing but guinea pigs, and deserve to know that.

azskeptic
12-20-2006, 08:59 AM
I am all for them rebuilding. That would be great. However, there are two large issues. First of all, potential students should avoid schools that are rebuilding for a variety of reasons. Second of all, history tends to repeat itself.

So, if the school can manage to attract students, and do well, great. But, these students really will be nothing but guinea pigs, and deserve to know that. Reality remains that students are attending a school that has had major problems in the past in its various 'identities' and students can't sit for the PLAB. This hasn't changed.....the school is in a country where it isn't recognized as a medical school by the medical authorities.

empathy
12-20-2006, 09:35 AM
I’m sure the St. Chris students will be honest moving forward if they post here. I’ve been told that they won’t return though and I’m only wasting my time because after the first of the year the school is going to file a lawsuit. But I’m still hoping there’s a better way. We shouldn’t judge them by past mistakes….let’s give them a fresh start and hope for the best. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes. I’ve made about a billion in my lifetime. Many you’ve seen right here.

Potential new students come here hoping to get info about the school and get attacked simply for considering attending the college. And the moderators do nothing to protect them but yet they state at the very top of the forum that it is strictly moderated. Which, gives St. Chris pretty good grounds for a lawsuit against us.

The students might return if we stop hitting every positive thread with a negative one. I’m guilty of that myself and I’m sorry. Please let’s just back off and see what happens. If they do come back, minus the cheerleaders, don’t attack them. If, you see something that’s not correct simply report it to the authorities.

For those of you interested in fighting foreign med school fraud there is a very good group you can join called, ‘Quackwatch’. Google it…I’d post the link but I’ve posted it in the past and don’t want to ***** the forum.

rangness
12-23-2006, 01:03 AM
Thanks.....its been a tough rebuilding process and it feels good to see people rebuilding for us instead of just leaving us high and dry. and its been a very difficult past 8 months so when people outside of our school give us a hard time, it just adds to our frustrations. let us get through this and only deal with our admin frustrating us. thanks again.

teratos
12-23-2006, 08:37 AM
Potential new students come here hoping to get info about the school and get attacked simply for considering attending the college. And the moderators do nothing to protect them but yet they state at the very top of the forum that it is strictly moderated. Which, gives St. Chris pretty good grounds for a lawsuit against us.



The moderators are not here to validate any information. We are here to make sure that users adhere to the TOS. No name calling, no flaming etc. It is up to YOU to validate information. I don't see where SC has any grounds for a lawsuit. Sure, things got ugly here sometimes, but there wasn't any slander. The school didn't close because of anything posted on this site. I think if you go back and look at the very aggressive marketing campaign by SC "students" on this forum, and on the Network54 fora you may have grounds for a lawsuit.

If SC files suit, it will be against individuals, most likely. It will also open SC to scrutiny. Given the problems they have had, and their still tenuous position, I doubt they will want to do that. G

stephew
12-23-2006, 11:38 AM
consider rereading the tos.

empathy
12-23-2006, 12:33 PM
You may have just stirred things up again.

'Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.' My favorite Christmas song this year.

No, they are in better shape now and if they want to continue moving in a positive direction they have no choice but to take steps to clean up their image on the web. Which might include taking Valuemd and Wikepedia before a judge to mediate certain issues after the first of the year. It's a smart business move but hopefully we can resolve things here. All we have to do is stop arguing and attacking students who are considering attending the college. The case will not be filed on grounds of slander I'm sure. The school didn't close it reopened under a new name. And they have already been before a judge on all of that and won against the forum admin. They are no longer in a tenuous position.

I don't really understand...do you not want St. Chris students to use the forum here on Valuemd that was set up for St. Chris? Do you not want potential new students to be able to find out info about the school here without being hassled? This forum was not designed for people to use it with the intent of investigating these schools or outting them to the public. Someone has recently enlightened me on this subject.


The moderators are not here to validate any information. We are here to make sure that users adhere to the TOS. No name calling, no flaming etc. It is up to YOU to validate information. I don't see where SC has any grounds for a lawsuit. Sure, things got ugly here sometimes, but there wasn't any slander.

If SC files suit, it will be against individuals, most likely. It will also open SC to scrutiny. Given the problems they have had, and their still tenuous position, I doubt they will want to do that. G

teratos
12-23-2006, 04:19 PM
Um, I don't think I stirred anything up. There have to be grounds for a lawsuit. It takes time and money.

I certainly want there to be a place for exchange of information. The old SC was a school with a LOT of problems. Will new management change that? It may, it may not. I've been around long enough to know that a healthy degree of skepticism is a very good thing to have when looking for an offshore med school. G

empathy
12-23-2006, 04:34 PM
gotta make sure we don't lean too far left or right.

So, are you going to lock Az's thread? If, potential new students only read his first post they might think they'll have trouble getting a student visa to attend the college. It was a pretty big blunder on his part. I think an apology is in order.

stephew
12-23-2006, 05:19 PM
if you have a post you want reviewed, report it to the moderators forum.

empathy
12-23-2006, 05:45 PM
maybe it's best to leave the thread out there. It proves a point. Someone cannot fight foreign medical fraud and be a good moderator on a foreign med school forum at the same time. One requires that he be skeptical and the other requires that he remain neutral. It just doesn't go together.

American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=neutral&ia=ahd4)

neu·tral

Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.
Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.skep·ti·cal

1.inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman. 2.showing doubt: a skeptical smile.

mod·er·a·tor


One that moderates, as:
One that arbitrates or mediates.
One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

teratos
12-23-2006, 06:26 PM
No, empathy. This has been explained to you before. I make sure people follow the TOS. I am certainly entitled to my opinions, aren't I? There is nothing either spoken or unspoken that dictates I need to keep my opinions to myself. Like other users, I am simply required to follow the rules of the board. I want to lend my experience in helping people make the best decision they can. When i feel I have something valuable to add, I do. Am I correct all the time? Probably not. Having been through med school, residency, being in practice, being involved in a teaching program, being involved in residency interview/selection processes, I think I bring something to the table. I have never been one to keep my opinions to myself.

The spirit of fora like these is that people share ideas, people disagree about things, and arguments are laid out for all to read. People find points of contention, and people find common ground. What you are doing in a very passive-aggressive manner is trying to stifle my ability to express my opinion on these fora. That is not appropriate. I don't moderate ANY post based on content, as long as the poster follows the rules. You should try to do that, too......

Just because a school is new doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize it. Especially a school with the history St. Chris has. Time will tell whether it ends up being a good choice. Once the school has licensed grads aplenty, not just a few anecdotal cases. Until then, I feel it is in the best interest of prospective students to avoid it if at all possible. There are still plenty of potential pitfalls. G

empathy
12-23-2006, 06:38 PM
you are using 'I' and I was talking about Az. And who are you or Az to play God??? You aren't on the inside...you don't really know what's going on -- you just think you do. I understand though because I was guilty of that myself 'til recently. Just leave the students alone and let them have their forum back. Stop trying to steer new students away from the school. That is grounds for a lawsuit.


Until then, I feel it is in the best interest of prospective students to avoid it if at all possible. There are still plenty of potential pitfalls. G

pruritis_ani
12-23-2006, 06:40 PM
You may have just stirred things up again.

'Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.' My favorite Christmas song this year.

No, they are in better shape now and if they want to continue moving in a positive direction they have no choice but to take steps to clean up their image on the web. Which might include taking Valuemd and Wikepedia before a judge to mediate certain issues after the first of the year. It's a smart business move but hopefully we can resolve things here. All we have to do is stop arguing and attacking students who are considering attending the college. The case will not be filed on grounds of slander I'm sure. The school didn't close it reopened under a new name. And they have already been before a judge on all of that and won against the forum admin. They are no longer in a tenuous position.

I don't really understand...do you not want St. Chris students to use the forum here on Valuemd that was set up for St. Chris? Do you not want potential new students to be able to find out info about the school here without being hassled? This forum was not designed for people to use it with the intent of investigating these schools or outting them to the public. Someone has recently enlightened me on this subject.


I am not sure that I agree that they are in a better place, or that they are no longer in a tenuous position.

They are a reincarnation of St Chris, a school that has had countless problems. They have most of the same problems today. They are, at best, a school starting from scratch. But, like it or not, they have the shadow of the "old" St Chris hanging over them.

I would love potential students to come here for info. The smart ones will realize that those of us looking in from the outside have far less to gain, and no real reason to mislead. They will see our legit reasons for a significant amount of skepticism for this school.

The students at St Chris now and always have wanted little to no scrutiny surrounding thier school. The reason for this is clear...if people look to closely, like many have, the house of cards they were living in was bound to fall. This appears to still be the case. So, while they hide behind the self righteous complaints that everyone is out to get them, and that they cannot get a fair shake, it is pretty easy to see that every single problem came from within the school.

This school is a very poor choice now, and has been since its inception. In the future, who knows. But, to all of the sudden claim that the school is no longer tenuous, and on the right track, when absolutely nothing has changed for the better sounds ridiculous. The GMC still bans them. They still lost the loans. They still have a terrible history of decieving students and of shady marketing practices. They still have never been favorably reviewed by an outside source. They still have NO state approvals, and few licensed grads. There is still a ton of infighting among students, and many issues facing recent graduates and transfer students. In short, it is not a school that should be seriously considered.

The fact that there are a few desperate students that were unfortunate enough (well, unfortunate is not really a good word, seeing all the info out there about this school....ignorant comes to mind..) to wind up at this school means little. Of course they are going to clamor and want the scrutiny to disappear. They want to salvage a little value from a potentially worthless degree. But, the poor choices they made and the consequences they face do not concern me. I just hope that nobody else follows in those footsteps....

maximillian genossa
12-23-2006, 06:44 PM
"The spirit of fora like these is that people share ideas, people disagree about things, and arguments are laid out for all to read. People find points of contention, and people find common ground.".....

And poeple lie too, or tend to exaggerate, or simply speaking make up stuff to see what information they can scoop out.

Just my .02c




No, empathy. This has been explained to you before. I make sure people follow the TOS. I am certainly entitled to my opinions, aren't I? There is nothing either spoken or unspoken that dictates I need to keep my opinions to myself. Like other users, I am simply required to follow the rules of the board. I want to lend my experience in helping people make the best decision they can. When i feel I have something valuable to add, I do. Am I correct all the time? Probably not. Having been through med school, residency, being in practice, being involved in a teaching program, being involved in residency interview/selection processes, I think I bring something to the table. I have never been one to keep my opinions to myself.

The spirit of fora like these is that people share ideas, people disagree about things, and arguments are laid out for all to read. People find points of contention, and people find common ground. What you are doing in a very passive-aggressive manner is trying to stifle my ability to express my opinion on these fora. That is not appropriate. I don't moderate ANY post based on content, as long as the poster follows the rules. You should try to do that, too......

Just because a school is new doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize it. Especially a school with the history St. Chris has. Time will tell whether it ends up being a good choice. Once the school has licensed grads aplenty, not just a few anecdotal cases. Until then, I feel it is in the best interest of prospective students to avoid it if at all possible. There are still plenty of potential pitfalls. G

empathy
12-23-2006, 06:56 PM
of students being steered away from the school on valuemd...is valuemd liable for this post? Did the moderators do anything about it or perhaps a mod posted something that encouraged this kind of behavior on the forum? Personally set an example that made people think it was okay.

You once posted at the top of the forum that we were not to discuss the ****** of St. Chris. That ***** was later found to have taken students for a ride. Now, the tables have turned. You have a group of people who are trying to clean up the school and yet no one here will come to their defense.


I am not sure that I agree that they are in a better place, or that they are no longer in a tenuous position.

They are a reincarnation of St Chris, a school that has had countless problems. They have most of the same problems today. They are, at best, a school starting from scratch. But, like it or not, they have the shadow of the "old" St Chris hanging over them.

I would love potential students to come here for info. The smart ones will realize that those of us looking in from the outside have far less to gain, and no real reason to mislead. They will see our legit reasons for a significant amount of skepticism for this school.

The students at St Chris now and always have wanted little to no scrutiny surrounding thier school. The reason for this is clear...if people look to closely, like many have, the house of cards they were living in was bound to fall. This appears to still be the case. So, while they hide behind the self righteous complaints that everyone is out to get them, and that they cannot get a fair shake, it is pretty easy to see that every single problem came from within the school.

This school is a very poor choice now, and has been since its inception. In the future, who knows. But, to all of the sudden claim that the school is no longer tenuous, and on the right track, when absolutely nothing has changed for the better sounds ridiculous. The GMC still bans them. They still lost the loans. They still have a terrible history of decieving students and of shady marketing practices. They still have never been favorably reviewed by an outside source. They still have NO state approvals, and few licensed grads. There is still a ton of infighting among students, and many issues facing recent graduates and transfer students. In short, it is not a school that should be seriously considered.

The fact that there are a few desperate students that were unfortunate enough (well, unfortunate is not really a good word, seeing all the info out there about this school....ignorant comes to mind..) to wind up at this school means little. Of course they are going to clamor and want the scrutiny to disappear. They want to salvage a little value from a potentially worthless degree. But, the poor choices they made and the consequences they face do not concern me. I just hope that nobody else follows in those footsteps....

teratos
12-23-2006, 07:31 PM
of students being steered away from the school on valuemd...is valuemd liable for this post? Did the moderators do anything about it or perhaps a mod posted something that encouraged this kind of behavior on the forum? Personally set an example that made people think it was okay.

You once posted at the top of the forum that we were not to discuss the ****** of St. Chris. That ***** was later found to have taken students for a ride. Now, the tables have turned. You have a group of people who are trying to clean up the school and yet no one here will come to their defense.

No, that is what this forum is about. Empathy, this is a free country. My opinion is covered under the First Amendment. If you want to be a crusader for the new and unproven admin of SC, you knock yourself out. Respect is something that is earned. Every new school should be viewed with a skeptical eye, IMHO. I have seen a few close over the years. If people want to sue me for saying so, they won't win. My identity is not a very closely guarded secret. Lots of people here know my name. You have said far more damaging things about the old SC admin than I, if I recall correctly. Now that they have a fledgling new administration, they suddenly an excellent choice? Odd, isn't it? G

teratos
12-23-2006, 07:31 PM
"The spirit of fora like these is that people share ideas, people disagree about things, and arguments are laid out for all to read. People find points of contention, and people find common ground.".....

And poeple lie too, or tend to exaggerate, or simply speaking make up stuff to see what information they can scoop out.

Just my .02c

No question about that one.

stephew
12-23-2006, 08:13 PM
i will remind people about tos. and rememebr that you may not threaten other users.

empathy
12-23-2006, 08:58 PM
if this is how we are going to behave then perhaps the school should take us to court. I've lost here. The St. Chris student I've been speaking to was right....it's hopeless. You guys are determined to destroy the college.

We do not have the right to bash a business like this and drive their customers away. Especially, in a forum that was set up for them to advertise. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Note: I own the role I've played in this bad behavior by saying 'we'.

teratos
12-24-2006, 06:46 AM
if this is how we are going to behave then perhaps the school should take us to court. I've lost here. The St. Chris student I've been speaking to was right....it's hopeless. You guys are determined to destroy the college.

We do not have the right to bash a business like this and drive their customers away. Especially, in a forum that was set up for them to advertise. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Note: I own the role I've played in this bad behavior by saying 'we'.

No forum was set up for any school to "advertise". These fora are for people to get their questions answered. If you don't think it is the best choice, then say so. I am not personally out to destroy any school. I feel it is in the best interest of the student to avoid any new school. Now that SC has a history of some big issues, I think my position is solidified. if, in the future, the new admin proves to do a good job, students get licensed in numerous states without a problem, I would change my position.

If you buy a car, and that car breaks down every 100 miles, are you going to continue to say good things about it? If you get on the internet, and see that a first time car buyer is going to buy that car because of the sweet paint job, are you going to encourage him to buy it because you don't want to hurt the company making the car? This is what you are suggesting we do with SC, and it doesn't make much sense. Telling him the car isn't a wise choice IS the right thing to do. What you are saying makes no sense at all.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Please explain to me why it is a good idea for people to go to SC now.

empathy
12-24-2006, 08:17 AM
your posts prove my point. If you would back off and stop saying things like this perhaps the students and admin would feel safe to start using Valuemd again and tell us more about the changes and improvements they've made. They have some good things in the works but I don't blame them for not sharing them with us here. No one here is perfect, we all make mistakes, I wish we could go forward.


I feel it is in the best interest of the student to avoid any new school.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Please explain to me why it is a good idea for people to go to SC now.

Azrealist
12-24-2006, 10:28 AM
most of these "big issues" were blown and are still blown out of proportion on this web site... yes there were issues... yes there still are issues.. but this could have all been solved quietly with much less drama had it gone about the proper way...

When you have someone with no actual knowledge of offshore medical schools posting information constantly... people start to think he's an authority... so when this person posts up that the school has no DfES listing... people just believe him... This site has been notorious for posting incorrect facts...

People post things about the reciever and the lawsuit that were 100% incorrect... but again.. if someone posts enough ** and lies.. people begin to believe it because "well he posts so much and everyone aggrees with him it must be true"

There are a few other very positive things that have come about since this thing happened... we've had the DfES listing for a few months now.. along with a few other things... why does no one post things here? because you have "authorities" who barely know how to search a database posting wrong information... so if we say we have xyz.. then people here will try to find it on the internet with a 2 sec google scan and say no...

We have all these things needed posted on our internal forum.. the state agencies and gov't agencies that need it also have copies and are processing it.

I've contacted oregon personally.. and they are just as bad a the people here... they mention no DfES... I had to call them and walk the person through how to find it...

They mention no gov't approval for the school... i had to literally walk them to the copy of the fax they have from the gov't of senegal giving specific approval from the year 2000 to both UK and dakar campus... then you talk to the next person at the board and "no gov't approval" ...

Oregon just isn't a high enough priority now to be the sole place dealt with at this time... there are higher priorities first (TERI loans being the biggest along with continuing to work the GMC)... We're going to have to literally walk oregon step by step through each peice of paper because they don't understand them... just no time for it now... Everything they say they "require" has been provided, and its actually a really short and easy list to fill... Oregon is high on the list.. just not the top just yet...

I've already talked to DOC about trying to get these people banned from just the SCIMD forum because they constantly post garbage... if we could ban them.. and allow people who know what they're talking about on here to control things.. people would come back... no one wants to come here and be constantly attacked...

anyway... merry xmas... hopefully not all of you get lumps of coal....

azskeptic
12-24-2006, 11:17 AM
Reality continues to be that SC is a risk. You can put any spin you want on it but some of the US states an foreign govts see it that way also.

I have mae an inquiry to DIES to see what is real there.

Cheers

skeptic

teratos
12-24-2006, 11:26 AM
your posts prove my point. If you would back off and stop saying things like this perhaps the students and admin would feel safe to start using Valuemd again and tell us more about the changes and improvements they've made. They have some good things in the works but I don't blame them for not sharing them with us here. No one here is perfect, we all make mistakes, I wish we could go forward.


Doesn't matter. Until there is a history to it, it remains an unknown. You seem to have made a complete 180 here, why did you do that?

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 11:38 AM
I see your post, and it was the exact same way the entire U.S. Medical community felt about St. Georges back in 1983 when the U.S. had to invade Grenada and rescue the medical students stranded there. It was all over the media. How unstable and unpredictable the future of St. George was, etc. Same with Xochicalco in Mexico when the DES had to pull their Stafford Loans due to corruption. Guess what Dean, they have them back. Time managed to prove everyone wrong. Will history repeat itself now with St. Chris?

If it will depend on people like you, than only want to destroy this school, it is not going to happen. If it depends on the minds of people willing to analyze it and judge the outcome objectively, they stand a chance.

One thing is sure, if Valuemd would have existed between 1978-1983 with the rampant amount of self-proclaimed experts neither Ross, St. George's or AUC would be in business today.



Oh yes, and you made an inquiry to the DFES because it defies all logics (at least in your own mind set) that you were proven wrong, you jumped the gun and posted something that ended up making you look really bad rather than admitting you screwed that one up and simply say, "ooops, I am sorry"

You dig?





Reality continues to be that SC is a risk. You can put any spin you want on it but some of the US states an foreign govts see it that way also.

I have mae an inquiry to DIES to see what is real there.

Cheers

skeptic

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 01:15 PM
ok, here is a short list of facts about SC
1. govt of senegal grants charter
2. listed in IMED
3. classes in london, clinicals in US
4. NO states that evaluate schools recognize SC
5. the UK (where the school is physically located) does not recognize SC
6. the fact that they teach outside the country of charter puts grads at risk for no licensure in some states
7. the school has recently had tons of upheaval in terms of managment and administration-given the fact that there is new managment in place, partially derived from the old school, it would be wise to be very skeptical in trusting them-they have proven nothing yet
8. many students fled, and subsequently had trouble getting paperwork and transcripts-more evidence that the school's new admin is a bit less than 100% ethical
9. the school has a very long history of lies and deciet, both by students and admin in the hopes of luring students-thus, when they now claim that they want us to trust them, and let them market to new students, yet at the same time claim a conspiracy agains SC and a need to remain private-well, frankly it sounds like the same ** from a new screen name...

the bottom line is that the school started off lying to students, briefly looked like it was making progress, then went down in flames. now, there is a lot of justifiable skepticism.

respect and trust from an offshore institution is earned. and, this school has a very, very long way to go. they started off bad, and only got worse. so, if they want to make claims and be a legit institution, it is simple. get some results. until then, i think you would have to have a lot of money to waste, and be a bit short on logic to attend such a school.

empathy
12-24-2006, 01:18 PM
The only reason you come here is to tear the school down. You post a little dig and then you are out. That's not right...took me a while to understand and get that but it really isn't right. It doesn't matter which team you claim to play for....dirty pool is dirty pool.

I've called Oregon too. To find out about the new school. What it would take for them to get their approval and they were very positive. Azrealist, there are some really good people at the Oregon office don't give up on them yet. If, the school is honest and makes a real effort to turn things around they'll get behind you.


Reality continues to be that SC is a risk. You can put any spin you want on it but some of the US states an foreign govts see it that way also.

I have mae an inquiry to DIES to see what is real there.

Cheers

skeptic

empathy
12-24-2006, 01:20 PM
that goes for you too.


ok, here is a short list of facts about SC
1. govt of senegal grants charter
2. listed in IMED
3. classes in london, clinicals in US
4. NO states that evaluate schools recognize SC
5. the UK (where the school is physically located) does not recognize SC
6. the fact that they teach outside the country of charter puts grads at risk for no licensure in some states
7. the school has recently had tons of upheaval in terms of managment and administration-given the fact that there is new managment in place, partially derived from the old school, it would be wise to be very skeptical in trusting them-they have proven nothing yet
8. many students fled, and subsequently had trouble getting paperwork and transcripts-more evidence that the school's new admin is a bit less than 100% ethical
9. the school has a very long history of lies and deciet, both by students and admin in the hopes of luring students-thus, when they now claim that they want us to trust them, and let them market to new students, yet at the same time claim a conspiracy agains SC and a need to remain private-well, frankly it sounds like the same ** from a new screen name...

the bottom line is that the school started off lying to students, briefly looked like it was making progress, then went down in flames. now, there is a lot of justifiable skepticism.

respect and trust from an offshore institution is earned. and, this school has a very, very long way to go. they started off bad, and only got worse. so, if they want to make claims and be a legit institution, it is simple. get some results. until then, i think you would have to have a lot of money to waste, and be a bit short on logic to attend such a school.

AUCMD2006
12-24-2006, 01:25 PM
the two former incarnations of SC were questionable. the current version of SC is questionasble the only thing that has changed is the admin. they have such a great business model it amazes me how theya ren't able to move forward more easily. maybe it is this website but i still think that if their operations were completely open they wouldn't need to close and reinvent themselves again and again. people would go in knowing the limitations and have nothing to compalin about, over a period of 5-10 years there would be less and less questions.

even the new incarnation has its rumors flying about. what is going on with the tuition paid to old SC not counting towards the current SC? weren't some students being asked to pay for 2 years of clinicals already completed? hopefully that was all ** otherwise it is not a very good start to a new school.

should the new school be given every oportunity? absolutely, the students deserve it but not at the expense of reliving every other mistake so they should be questioned and AZ's recent screw up is a perfect example of how quickly information that is inaccurate can be verified and straightened out and he should apologize for jumping the gun.

empathy-whatever is going on with your new found faith in a new school is great but you aren't the one putting in the money for the education so as one of the few who almost threw away 200k in an unproven school based solely on what the then current students said. i will question and make sure potential students know what they are getting into when they sign up to any new school


max-these 'temporal mindnumbing excersises people are so fond of are quite amusing. the preverbial 'if this happened back in the day when men were men and sheep were nervous' scenarios are not realiatic in any way shape or form. if the internet was araound in the late 70's then it is very likely that the pillars of caribbean medical education would not be here today because we have different standards now...that is the whole reason that those same schools don't look much like they did in the 70's...

this forum serves its purpose most of the time opinions are put up with a lot of questionable opinions put forth as fact. but in these days it is quite easy to verify facts as was illustrated by AZ's recent blunder. now if only all "facts" new schools put up were so easy to verify.

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 01:35 PM
that goes for you too.

If the school ever gets something positive to say, I will be happy to say it. But, unlike you, I am not going to change my position based on nothing but the desperate pleas of students stuck in the quagmire, that clearly have a lot to gain by misleading people.

Facts are what guides me. The fact is that this school dug a huge hole, and is still very, very deep in it. If they ever climb out, great. But, that is the responsibility of the school and admin, and frankly I see very little yet. No loans, terrible rep, already blew up once, etc...this school has so much wrong with it that what we say is like spittin in the wind! If you really think that this board has been what is wrong with the school, then I suggest you revisit what the purpose of the board is. We simply discuss problems that exist...we do NOT create the problems.

empathy
12-24-2006, 02:20 PM
you have stated your facts here many MANY times. You really have nothing left to say at this point. You know nothing about the new admin and the improvements they are making at the school. You are just floodingg at this point. Try to say something positive about the school...just try...trust me it feels a lot better than bashing them all the time.


If the school ever gets something positive to say, I will be happy to say it. But, unlike you, I am not going to change my position based on nothing but the desperate pleas of students stuck in the quagmire, that clearly have a lot to gain by misleading people.

Facts are what guides me. The fact is that this school dug a huge hole, and is still very, very deep in it. If they ever climb out, great. But, that is the responsibility of the school and admin, and frankly I see very little yet. No loans, terrible rep, already blew up once, etc...this school has so much wrong with it that what we say is like spittin in the wind! If you really think that this board has been what is wrong with the school, then I suggest you revisit what the purpose of the board is. We simply discuss problems that exist...we do NOT create the problems.

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 02:45 PM
you have stated your facts here many MANY times. You really have nothing left to say at this point. You know nothing about the new admin and the improvements they are making at the school. You are just floodingg at this point. Try to say something positive about the school...just try...trust me it feels a lot better than bashing them all the time.

Again, if there was something positive to say, I would say it. I am not bashing the school. The sad fact is that if you remain honest, and report things as they are, the school looks as bad as it is. That is not bashing, it is reality.

Sorry, but I don't make up positive things about any school. If it sucks, it sucks. I am not sure why you decided that trying to say something positive about a terrible school is better than preventing many, many potential students from wasting money on a terrible school, but it is strange. IMHO, the students that are there made a poor choice, and have to live with it. Especially since they had a lot of information available to guide them.

So, it appears your newfound allegience is to help those who made a terrible mistake, and in helping you will be encouraging others to attend this terrible school. I still am watching out for those that may not know about this school, and it's history of lying, and it's very doubtful future.

But, please don't lecture me about how to do something to "feel good". I feel good everytime I get a PM from somebody thanking me for warning them away from this school. I feel good every time I get a PM from a student that tells me things are still terrible, and thanking me for posting.

I think that you will feel far worse when this school fails it's students again, and you will be partly responsible for some sorry student wasting thousands of dollars, going in to debt and winding up with nothing.

I go by the evidence. Thus far, the evidence shows very strongly that this school is terrible. If it gets better, great. Until then, I will not support a school that has this many problems.

empathy
12-24-2006, 02:51 PM
I asked a lawyer and here is his response. St. Chris does have grounds for a lawsuit against you, Az and especially Pru for the following: (Me too but I'm trying to make ammends.)

Defamation....In law, defamation is the communication of a statement
that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the
reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or
nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or
criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.

Libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but
also a picture, sign, or electronic
broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

And first ammendment rights is not a defense for defamation or libel.



No, that is what this forum is about. Empathy, this is a free country. My opinion is covered under the First Amendment. If you want to be a crusader for the new and unproven admin of SC, you knock yourself out. Respect is something that is earned. Every new school should be viewed with a skeptical eye, IMHO. I have seen a few close over the years. If people want to sue me for saying so, they won't win. My identity is not a very closely guarded secret. Lots of people here know my name. You have said far more damaging things about the old SC admin than I, if I recall correctly. Now that they have a fledgling new administration, they suddenly an excellent choice? Odd, isn't it? G

teratos
12-24-2006, 03:18 PM
I have not done any of the above. The only thing I have done over the past 4 years is point out that the school is NOT a british school. That was an early claim. My biggest problem with the school is that it doesn't operate in the country of charter. That could spell trouble. The precident for this was when Ross want to open a school on an indian reservation in Wyoming (I think). One of the ways the government was going to screw Ross was using that as an issue and not let the grads get licensed. These are valid concerns. I don't know enough about anyone involved with SC to pass judgement. The licensure issue has always been my concern. G

empathy
12-24-2006, 03:22 PM
I'll be there that day with my positive posts in hand praying for leniency. I'll buy you lunch after it's all over.


I have not done any of the above. The only thing I have done over the past 4 years is point out that the school is NOT a british school. That was an early claim. My biggest problem with the school is that it doesn't operate in the country of charter. That could spell trouble. The precident for this was when Ross want to open a school on an indian reservation in Wyoming (I think). One of the ways the government was going to screw Ross was using that as an issue and not let the grads get licensed. These are valid concerns. I don't know enough about anyone involved with SC to pass judgement. The licensure issue has always been my concern. G

diogenes
12-24-2006, 03:23 PM
Empathy, did your "lawyer" quote the entry in Wikipedia verbatim to you? Or was that entirely your own effort? If so it would be good, in this new spirit of regard for accuracy and the truth that's breaking out this Christmas Eve on the forum, to have clarified the source. (Slander and libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation))
By the way, in order to have one's reputation harmed there needs to be a (good) reputation capable of being damaged in the first place.

empathy
12-24-2006, 03:24 PM
someone we all know and admire ... a much better person than me


Empathy, did your "lawyer" quote the entry in Wikipedia verbatim to you? Or was that entirely your own effort? If so it would be good, in this new spirit of regard for accuracy and the truth that's breaking out this Christmas Eve on the forum, to have clarified the source.
By the way, in order to have one's reputation harmed there needs to be a (good) reputation capable of being damaged in the first place.

redeye
12-24-2006, 03:27 PM
I asked a lawyer and here is his response. St. Chris does have grounds for a lawsuit against you, Az and especially Pru for the following: (Me too but I'm trying to make ammends.)

Defamation....In law, defamation is the communication of a statement
that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the
reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or
nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or
criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.

Libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but
also a picture, sign, or electronic
broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

And first ammendment rights is not a defense for defamation or libel.

And tell me, since SC is outside the states, which law (state or fed) applies here and which country/state will host this trial?

Its always a fine idea when when you don't like the opinions of a person to use the implied threat of a lawsuit to try and intimidate and scare them away from expressing their views?

Does this laywer friend of yours have any connection to SC. Where does he/she practice, and which laws are being sited here?

empathy
12-24-2006, 03:35 PM
using a college's forum to steer potential students away from the college is wrong isn't it? Especially, when the 'viewers' are potential students and the posters have no affiliation with the college? And the moderator who most freq. posts on the forum only posts negative info and advertises that he works in the prevention of foreign med school fraud. You honestly see nothing wrong with that?

No he does not work for St. Chris. St. Chris could not afford him. Some of St. Chris legal work has been handled in New Jersey. To say the word 'lawsuit' in this case makes perfect since...read the forum...it's completely out of control. It's just gone too far. And I accept full responsibility for the role I played and ask for the school's forgiveness.


And tell me, since SC is outside the states, which law (state or fed) applies here and which country/state will host this trial?

Its always a fine idea when when you don't like the opinions of a person to use the implied threat of a lawsuit to try and intimidate and scare them away from expressing their views?

Does this laywer friend of yours have any connection to SC. Where does he/she practice, and which laws are being sited here?

redeye
12-24-2006, 03:38 PM
using a college's forum to steer potential students away from the college is wrong isn't it? Especially, when the 'viewers' are potential students and the posters have no affiliation with the college? And the moderator who most freq. posts on the forum only posts negative info and advertises that he works in the prevention of foreign med school fraud. You honestly see nothing wrong with that?

Wrong or Illegal?

Again, please answer my questions if you want to have any credibility?

Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to intimidate those who are
freely expressing their opinions.

redeye
12-24-2006, 03:51 PM
Let me guess. You also think it would be ok for a big pharmaceutical company to threaten to sue the NEJM and an MD if an MD wrote in a letter to the editor questioning some of the advertising claims of a new drug.

azskeptic
12-24-2006, 03:51 PM
I am not sure I am incorrect on th Dept of Ed-UK's position. It is posted elsewhere that they told a moderator that SC had been pulled. I will verify it after the holiday and if I was wrong (the web site was proving me right) I'll post it.

Skptic

diogenes
12-24-2006, 03:55 PM
using a college's forum to steer potential students away from the college is wrong isn't it? Especially, when the 'viewers' are potential students and the posters have no affiliation with the college? And the moderator who most freq. posts on the forum only posts negative info and advertises that he works in the prevention of foreign med school fraud. You honestly see nothing wrong with that?........
I don't think it is wrong. The forum is not the sole property of St. Chris or its students. A major purpose of these forums is to give prospective students information about the schools they're interested in. If others see misinformation being peddled they have every good reason and right to post. You are not a St. Chris. student but I would defend your right to contribute.
Also, bear in mind that things happening with one school can have an adverse effect on others- these schools are not islands (though a good many are located on them).
I'm actually pleased to see that you have recognized that some of the negative posters have scant regard for the facts; but waving the amateur lawyer's big stick and suggesting some kind of censorship is not the way to go.

empathy
12-24-2006, 03:55 PM
reread my post...I edited it for you. I am not the sort to try to intimidate anyone. I'm just a girl who strayed too far left, made a mistake and is trying to make ammends. Change isn't easy but it's possible. Gotta stay open minded about things or you don't grow.

It's hard to free your mind from a negative pattern of thought...but we really hurt people when we don't listen, consider the other side and give them a chance to turn it all around. That is what I'm doing with St. Chris. Yeah, they made mistakes but they are trying to learn from them and go forward. Which would you rather...that they just give up and shut down or change for the better and go forward? Do you really want to see their grads lose everything?


Wrong or Illegal?

Again, please answer my questions if you want to have any credibility?

Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to intimidate those who are
freely expressing their opinions.

empathy
12-24-2006, 04:00 PM
for goodness sake...just give it up and apologize already.

And the rest of you guys...if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. We were all taught that as children and forgot it somewhere along the way.

Have a Merry Christmas Everybody!!!


I am not sure I am incorrect on th Dept of Ed-UK's position. It is posted elsewhere that they told a moderator that SC had been pulled. I will verify it after the holiday and if I was wrong (the web site was proving me right) I'll post it.

Skptic

redeye
12-24-2006, 04:03 PM
And tell me, since SC is outside the states, which law (state or fed) applies here and which country/state will host this trial?

Its always a fine idea when when you don't like the opinions of a person to use the implied threat of a lawsuit to try and intimidate and scare them away from expressing their views?

Does this laywer friend of yours have any connection to SC. Where does he/she practice, and which laws are being sited here?

Then which laws are being violated. Which state will host this trial/hearing? If SC has an office in NY, ValueMD has an office in another state, and someone making a thread is either in another state or outside of the country, which law(s) apply?

Do the law(s) you are citing make any mention of discussing the advertising claims made by an entity(SC) on the internet/media on which the claims are being made as to whether this would be construed as libel/defimation?

azskeptic
12-24-2006, 04:05 PM
Then which laws are being violated. Which state will host this trial/hearing? If SC has an office in NY, ValueMD has an office in another state, and someone making a thread is either in another state or outside of the country, which law(s) apply?

Do the law(s) you are citing make any mention of discussing the advertising claims made by an entity(SC) on the internet/media on which the claims are being made as to whether this would be construed as libel/defimation? The internet libel laws are quite interesting...the law isn't clear yet but so far the courts have upheld people to say just about anything on the internet........

redeye
12-24-2006, 04:10 PM
The internet libel laws are quite interesting...the law isn't clear yet but so far the courts have upheld people to say just about anything on the internet........

This is consistant with what I know about this subject as well.

That's why I find it interesting that a person will say my lawyer friend says '.....' without any factual basis...to try and scare everyone from offering their opinions.

It is important to remember though, that someone, somewhere, will always be looking to take what you say out of context and sue you either to get you to be quiet or to gain financially.

rangness
12-24-2006, 04:12 PM
Are we still talking about the original post of this thread or have we gotten a bit off topic?

stephew
12-24-2006, 04:24 PM
please stay on topic. so long as users are within tos they are welcome to post. you do not have to agree with them. and please do stay within terms of use and within the law.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 05:16 PM
The internet libel laws are quite interesting...the law isn't clear yet but so far the courts have upheld people to say just about anything on the internet........

Can you please quote some reference cases? Which courts, let it be local, distrcit, state, federal, etc? Case name or number, etc. I mean, I would like to read the cases, can you share them ?

In Wagner v. Miskin (2003 ND 69), the court accepted local jurisdiction against an out-of-state web site owner.* The defendant as changed with complaint sought damages for libel, slander, and for damages from reproducing her privileged communications (e-mails).* The court judged against the libeler, granting extensive punitive damages to the tune of $3,000,000.00.

redeye
12-24-2006, 05:42 PM
azskeptic shouldn't have to post cases/laws, as he is not the person running around trying to scare people away from voicing their opinions.

The person/people who should post the relevent laws are those who are suggesting on this forum that people who are writing their opions can be sued.

The onus should be on Empathy and anyone who agrees with her to
provide supporting law(s) and of those cases impaced by laws and the relevance to what I write here.

Simply siting a case, without the law(s), juristiction, and subsequent litigation/appeals is useless.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 05:42 PM
Most likely what is in Wikipedia comes from a law dictionary, frequently used in most law schools. Your second argument can be debated because it can be relative to the degree of good reputation involved. Example, a company fires its management because of mismanagement and reorganizes, etc. How can you prove that in fact there is a bad reputation by trying to get rid of the people who harmed you? Explain.





Empathy, did your "lawyer" quote the entry in Wikipedia verbatim to you? Or was that entirely your own effort? If so it would be good, in this new spirit of regard for accuracy and the truth that's breaking out this Christmas Eve on the forum, to have clarified the source. (Slander and libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation))
By the way, in order to have one's reputation harmed there needs to be a (good) reputation capable of being damaged in the first place.

Most likely what is in Wikipedia comes from a law dictionary, frequently used in most law schools. Your second argument can be debated because it can be relative to the degree of good reputation involved. Example, a company fires its management because of mismanagement and reorganizes, etc. How can you prove that in fact there is a bad reputation by trying to get rid of the people who harmed you? Explain.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 05:45 PM
After all he makes what seems to be a bold claim that courts are siding in favor of people who post potentially defamatory and libelous statements online, so I assume he knows a case or two and for our enlightment I ask, nothing wrong with that. Correct? Or is it that you are the kind of blind faithed individual that takes everything you are told at face value without questioning its legitimacy ?

Oh, and just FYI, when you quote a case, the case contains all pertinent laws applicable, so it's not useless as you incorrectly state ...".Simply siting a case, without the laws, is useless.[/QUOTE]"


Nothing personal.



azskeptic shouldn't have to post cases/laws, as he is not the person running around trying to scare people away from voicing their opinions.

The person/people who should post the relevent laws are those who are suggesting on this forum that people who are writing their opions can
be sued.

The onus should be on Empathy and anyone who agrees with her to
provide supporting law(s) and of those laws.

Simply siting a case, without the laws, is useless.

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 05:47 PM
ahh....so, it is clear what is happening now. empathy is now scared! so, to save her butt she changes side in the face of an entirely spurious threat of legal action~

i have not defamed SC, nor have i libeled them. i have expressed my opinion. one is free to say something sucks without fear of retribution. in fact, i gave evidence supporting my opinion. i would love to be sued for having a negative opinion of a crappy school. that would be hilarious!

besides, the last thing SC needs is more negative publicity. and, by claiming libel or defamation all of the dirty, sordid history would be brought to light again.

empathy, no offense, but you are really out of your league again. first, you have no real insight into offshore schools, as you are not a student, prospective student, admin, etc...then, you fall for the scare tactics of SC supporters over email! i love it..

btw, the SC group have done that for years. i cannot begin to count the number of threats i recieved from members of this forum and others. funny, eh?

redeye
12-24-2006, 05:52 PM
After all he makes what seems to be a bold claim that courts are siding in favor of people who post potentially defamatory and libelous statements online, so I assume he knows a case or two and for our enlightment I ask, nothing wrong with that. Correct? Or is it that you are the kind of blind faithed individual that takes everything you are told at face value without questioning its legitimacy ?

Nothing personal.

I am not offended, but I do appreciate your concern. Actually, the blind bold claim that what we write could be grounds for a lawsuit is being written by Empathy, and perpetuated by you.

The onus should be on Empathy and anyone who agrees to find cases where people who share their opinions on Web Forums are sued for expressing their opinion.

If you think what I an other's write can be grounds for a suit, please back it up otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to scare people into being quiet.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 05:53 PM
You just caught my attention because you have used the most common defense on these kind of scenarios..."in my opinion".

There are limits to the First Amendment – The old adage “free speech doesn’t mean that you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater” applies here.* You cannot just preface a libel with “in my opinion” (i.e. IMHO, John murdered three people).* The most common defense in a false light action is to claim First Amendment freedom of speech, but the courts are quite clear about offering no protection for false speech:

"false speech, even political speech, does not merit constitutional protection if the speaker knows of the falsehood or recklessly disregards the truth."

So it really comes down to the extent that you really know of the falsehood of your statements or not. Examples, you are asked to stop publishing something derogatory and the party that asks you to stop tells you what makes it derogatory and potentialy defamatory, and still, you insist. This is just an example.








ahh....so, it is clear what is happening now. empathy is now scared! so, to save her butt she changes side in the face of an entirely spurious threat of legal action~

i have not defamed SC, nor have i libeled them. i have expressed my opinion. one is free to say something sucks without fear of retribution. in fact, i gave evidence supporting my opinion. i would love to be sued for having a negative opinion of a crappy school. that would be hilarious!

besides, the last thing SC needs is more negative publicity. and, by claiming libel or defamation all of the dirty, sordid history would be brought to light again.

empathy, no offense, but you are really out of your league again. first, you have no real insight into offshore schools, as you are not a student, prospective student, admin, etc...then, you fall for the scare tactics of SC supporters over email! i love it..

btw, the SC group have done that for years. i cannot begin to count the number of threats i recieved from members of this forum and others. funny, eh?

redeye
12-24-2006, 05:56 PM
Can we lock this thread? It's going nowhere.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 05:58 PM
This is not a matter of scaring anyone but a matter of awareness. Most people. like you, believe that you can post anything you wish let it be true or not and still claim a freedom of speech claim to get off the hook. It is an old argument and it is not correct, very simple. Nobody is threatening anyone or scaring anyone, are we trying to get informed, or just crush dissenting opinions? I am not saying there are grounds for lawsuits, I am trying to input some information on what seems to be incorrect perceptions.

As I said, nothing personal.




I am not offended, but I do appreciate your concern. Actually, the blind bold claim that what we write could be grounds for a lawsuit is being written by Empathy, and perpetuated by you.

The onus should be on Empathy and anyone who agrees to find cases where people who share their opinions on Web Forums are sued for expressing their opinion.

If you think what I an other's write can be grounds for a suit, please back it up otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to scare people into being quiet.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:00 PM
Can we lock this thread? It's going nowhere.

It's getting juicy

:cool:

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 06:04 PM
well, I am not yelling "fire", but thanks....

I understand very well that there are limits to the first amendment. If you care to look through my posts, I would love to see what you think is libel or defamation...

In short, my writings state that I think SC sucks, and that it has had a terrible history filled with lies on this forum and it's websites. These lies have been clearly documented in the past. I also state that the students of this school have made false claims in the hopes of attracting other students. Again, this has been clearly documented on this forum. Based on this information, I feel that the administration is not to be trusted, nor are the "students" that post on this site.

These are the facts upon which I base my opinion.

I am not making any untrue statements, so no libel or defamation. And, I would love to see what you really think of my statements, and whether anything that I have said could truly be held against me. I think it is very obvious that I have broken no law. Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people into stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?

redeye
12-24-2006, 06:04 PM
This is not a matter of scaring anyone but a matter of awareness. Most people. like you, believe that you can post anything you wish let it be true or not and still claim a freedom of speech claim to get off the hook. It is an old argument and it is not correct, very simple. Nobody is threatening anyone or scaring anyone, are we trying to get informed, or just crush dissenting opinions? I am not saying there are grounds for lawsuits, I am trying to input some information on what seems to be incorrect perceptions.

As I said, nothing personal.

I am not taking this personally. It was just posted by Empathy that what is being written here IS grounds for a lawsuit. Since I am guessing that no one here is an attorney, using the (1) nebulous my friend is an attorney ploy or (2) Trust me, I know the law better than you argument to try and get people to stop posting, I would like to know what are the grounds for suing someone here? What Laws, in What States. What if the person making the claim lives outside of the States?

I have never heard of someone successfully sued for voicing their opinion on a Web Forum like this but if you know otherwise please post.

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 06:05 PM
well, I am not yelling "fire", but thanks....

I understand very well that there are limits to the first amendment. If you care to look through my posts, I would love to see what you think is libel or defamation...

In short, my writings state that I think SC sucks, and that it has had a terrible history filled with lies on this forum and it's websites. These lies have been clearly documented in the past. I also state that the students of this school have made false claims in the hopes of attracting other students. Again, this has been clearly documented on this forum. Based on this information, I feel that the administration is not to be trusted, nor are the "students" that post on this site.

These are the facts upon which I base my opinion.

I am not making any untrue statements, so no libel or defamation. And, I would love to see what you really think of my statements, and whether anything that I have said could truly be held against me. I think it is very obvious that I have broken no law. Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people out of stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?

redeye
12-24-2006, 06:08 PM
Maybe someone will hear my call to lock this thread if I keep asking.

diogenes
12-24-2006, 06:08 PM
Most likely what is in Wikipedia comes from a law dictionary, frequently used in most law schools. Your second argument can be debated because it can be relative to the degree of good reputation involved. Example, a company fires its management because of mismanagement and reorganizes, etc. How can you prove that in fact there is a bad reputation by trying to get rid of the people who harmed you? Explain.
Point taken about the law dictionary.
Regarding the reputation of the plaintiff, I agree completely that it is open to debate in court (and all sorts of pleas to juries who are notoriously capricious in defamation cases- here in the U.K. at least) and is not a cut and dried affair. But it needed to be pointed out in the context of people making statements about the nature of the defamation laws and how they might apply to posters here.

redeye
12-24-2006, 06:11 PM
It's getting juicy

:cool:


Its actually kindof stupid.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:11 PM
As I said, I am merely posting FYI items, and I am glad you are aware of your postings as much as anyone else becuase nobody is being accused of anything, we are just studying the potential consequences of our words when we post on public forums using a variety fo examples. And I think that is healthy to do.

Now, I love it when what a good conversation ends up in this..."Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people out of stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?"

Why get so defensive at the last minute?






well, I am not yelling "fire", but thanks....

I understand very well that there are limits to the first amendment. If you care to look through my posts, I would love to see what you think is libel or defamation...

In short, my writings state that I think SC sucks, and that it has had a terrible history filled with lies on this forum and it's websites. These lies have been clearly documented in the past. I also state that the students of this school have made false claims in the hopes of attracting other students. Again, this has been clearly documented on this forum. Based on this information, I feel that the administration is not to be trusted, nor are the "students" that post on this site.

These are the facts upon which I base my opinion.

I am not making any untrue statements, so no libel or defamation. And, I would love to see what you really think of my statements, and whether anything that I have said could truly be held against me. I think it is very obvious that I have broken no law. Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people out of stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?

:rolleyes:

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:15 PM
Its actually kindof stupid.

Well, if clarifying such important topics as internet communication law is stupid, oh well! It's up to you.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:17 PM
Point taken about the law dictionary.
Regarding the reputation of the plaintiff, I agree completely that it is open to debate in court (and all sorts of pleas to juries who are notoriously capricious in defamation cases- here in the U.K. at least) and is not a cut and dried affair. But it needed to be pointed out in the context of people making statements about the nature of the defamation laws and how they might apply to posters here.

We certainly agree!

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 06:18 PM
nothing defensive at all. i noticed how you picked my thread out, made the ridiculous comparison to yelling "fire", in the name of "pointing out potential consequences". just pointing out to others some reasons as to why you may try to do such a thing. clearly, if you have any understanding of the law, and have read any of my posts, you would know what a ridiculous comparison you were drawing. and, i know that you are not a stupid person, and that you do indeed read these posts. so, there had to be a reason that you singled my post out...and, it clearly is not the content. so, why is it? oh yeah...."potential consequences". give me a break.

what is said on this forum is far more comparable to an unfavorable book review. we have opinions based on publicly available information. we are free to say what we want, as long as it is not untrue. so, where on earth are you coming up with this "fire in the theatre" line of attack?

the answer is either that you are ignorant, you did not read the posts or that you are trying to scare people. and, as i mentioned before, you are not ignorant, and have a history of being very thorough about your reading before commenting....leaves us one choice....

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:25 PM
The grounds, it depends on what are you looking for. For example saying that such and such school is ran by mobsters, that it is a scam, etc. Those kind of things are extremely compromising when you are taken to court based on defamation, libel, etc. Even if you post copies of emails, like it happened in the St. Chris forum severa months ago can be grounds for a lawsuit. My case I like to quote, Wagner v. Miskin (2003 ND 69), the court accepted local jurisdiction against an out-of-state web site owner.* The defendant as changed with complaint sought damages for libel, slander, and for damages from reproducing her privileged communications (e-mails).* The court judged against the libeler, granting extensive punitive damages to the tune of $3,000,000.00.



I am not taking this personally. It was just posted by Empathy that what is being written here IS grounds for a lawsuit. Since I am guessing that no one here is an attorney, using the (1) nebulous my friend is an attorney ploy or (2) Trust me, I know the law better than you argument to try and get people to stop posting, I would like to know what are the grounds for suing someone here? What Laws, in What States. What if the person making the claim lives outside of the States?

I have never heard of someone successfully sued for voicing their opinion on a Web Forum like this but if you know otherwise please post.

azskeptic
12-24-2006, 06:26 PM
Well, if clarifying such important topics as internet communication law is stupid, oh well! It's up to you. The opportunity to provide law citations to an attorney is an honor.

The most recent case of someone who was sued for posting information they saw elsewhere is

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF

It will probably go to the Supreme Court so e'll find out more in the future. Some large companies supported the woman in the lawsuit---they feared erosion of the freedom of the internet.

Tell us more Genosa of what this all means.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:32 PM
The point is....You cannot just preface a libel with “in my opinion” (i.e. IMHO, John murdered three people).* The most common defense in a false light action is to claim First Amendment freedom of speech, but the courts are quite clear about offering no protection for false speech:



"false speech, even political speech, does not merit constitutional protection if the speaker knows of the falsehood or recklessly disregards the truth."

And the typical example is yelling fire in a crowded theater, figurative speech, you name it.

And I am not saying you, specifically, I am making reference to anyone who blindly believes their words will always be protected by the first ammendment.

If you consider this scaring tactics, it is a matter of perceptions. I can go on the whole night and you will be blindsided by the " yelling fire" word and "scaring tactics" arguments.




nothing defensive at all. i noticed how you picked my thread out, made the ridiculous comparison to yelling "fire", in the name of "pointing out potential consequences". just pointing out to others some reasons as to why you may try to do such a thing. clearly, if you have any understanding of the law, and have read any of my posts, you would know what a ridiculous comparison you were drawing. and, i know that you are not a stupid person, and that you do indeed read these posts. so, there had to be a reason that you singled my post out...and, it clearly is not the content. so, why is it? oh yeah...."potential consequences". give me a break.

what is said on this forum is far more comparable to an unfavorable book review. we have opinions based on publicly available information. we are free to say what we want, as long as it is not untrue. so, where on earth are you coming up with this "fire in the theatre" line of attack?

the answer is either that you are ignorant, you did not read the posts or that you are trying to scare people. and, as i mentioned before, you are not ignorant, and have a history of being very thorough about your reading before commenting....leaves us one choice....

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:36 PM
The opportunity to provide law citations to an attorney is an honor.

The most recent case of someone who was sued for posting information they saw elsewhere is

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF

It will probably go to the Supreme Court so e'll find out more in the future. Some large companies supported the woman in the lawsuit---they feared erosion of the freedom of the internet.

Tell us more Genosa of what this all means.

If the Supreme court wants to take it. Keep digging, you will find more gold!


Other interesting cases:

Sabbato v. Hardy,* Case No. 2000CA00136 (Ohio Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2000).* An Ohio appellate court reversed a lower court's decision concerning immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Hardy operated a website that allowed users to post and read opinions on the website. Sabbato sued Hardy for defamatory comments that were posted on his website. The appellate court found that the lower court had erred in granting Hardy immunity under the CDA. The court determined that Hardy was not automatically entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA because the complaint alleged that Hardy had personally participated in creating the defamatory comments.*

Griffis v. Luban,* No. C3-01-296 (Minn. 2002).* The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision regarding jurisdiction. Luban, a resident of Minnesota, repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking Griffis's professional credentials. Plaintiff Griffis obtained a default judgment for defamation in Alabama, which she sought to enforce in Minnesota. The lower Minnesota court determined that Alabama had properly exercised jurisdiction and enforced the default judgment. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed stating that the Alabama court could only have exercised jurisdiction if "the defendant expressly aimed the tortious conduct at the forum state such that the forum state was the focal point of the tortious activity." The court determined that although Luban had published the defamatory statements on the Internet, they were not expressly aimed at Alabama. Therefore, the court held that the Alabama court was not entitled to jurisdiction and that Griffis could not enforce the default judgment in Minnesota. See separate entry for lower court ruling.*

Varian v. Delfino and Day,* (Santa Clara Cty, Dec. 2001).* In one of the first Silicon Valley Internet libel cases to reach trial, a jury awarded $425,000 to Varian, the former employer of two disgruntled workers. The jury found that the two former employees had libeled Varian executives by posting more than 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites. The jury found the defendants liable for defamation as well as misappropriation of the executives names.* Update*April 19, 2002:* Pending appeal, the California 6th District Court of Appeal granted a temporary stay of contempt proceedings and the injunction granted by the trial court. The appellate court also stayed the damages award.

For the sake of being objective

Barrett v. Clark,* No. 833021-5 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2001).* Plaintiffs were doctors who ran websites that exposed health frauds. The defendants were advocates of alternative medicine. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants had published a number of defamatory statements on alternative medicine websites. Defendants moved to strike under California's anti-SLAPP laws (Code Civ. Pro. Sec 425.16), which were designed to counter lawsuits that chill the free exercise of speech. The court granted the motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP laws because 1)the statements concerned alternative medicine, a highly controversial issue that is a matter of public concern, and 2)the plaintiffs were unable to establish a probability of prevailing on their claims. *


Merry Christmas to all, wow I made it alive to over 850 postings

;)

pruritis_ani
12-24-2006, 06:37 PM
And my point is that there is nothing on here libelous...if you think there is something that is libelous, that we are prefacing with "in my opinion", please show us.

redeye
12-24-2006, 06:46 PM
It's getting juicy

:cool:


Its actually kindof stupid.


Well, if clarifying such important topics as internet communication law is stupid, oh well! It's up to you.


It's not the topic, it's you statement that I was commenting on.

It still looks to me like your trying to scare people from posting.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:54 PM
that's what you think, your opinion.

Cheers



Its actually kindof stupid.




It's not the topic, it's you statement that I was commenting on.

It still looks to me like your trying to scare people from posting.

maximillian genossa
12-24-2006, 06:58 PM
And my point is that there is nothing on here libelous...if you think there is something that is libelous, that we are prefacing with "in my opinion", please show us.

You will be surprised by how many of those you will find, not only in this forum, but the other one as well.

Keep searching, happy holidays........!

diogenes
12-24-2006, 07:04 PM
I think it's obvious that G. Max. enjoys a legal debate and has little interest in scaring people. There are others though who have posted here in the last couple of days with what might well be considered scaremongering and whose motivation I can't figure out.

empathy
12-24-2006, 08:41 PM
are just afraid the negative posters will read this, come to their senses and back off. It's true and makes perfect sense. Negative posts do open you up to liability.

Question is...why are you here? You've all said all you had to say and shared ALL the info you have about St. Chris NUMEROUS times. Now, you are just regurgitating the same stuff over and over again in an attempt to steer students away from the college. It's obvious that Az and Pru are here to warn students so they won't attend St. Chris. I know at least some of pru's posts have violated tos and he has yet to have rec'd a warning. It's the same negative info repeated time and time again...just in a dif manner.



I asked a lawyer and here is his response. St. Chris does have grounds for a lawsuit against you, Az and especially Pru for the following: (Me too but I'm trying to make ammends.)

Defamation....In law, defamation is the communication of a statement
that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the
reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or
nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or
criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.

Libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but
also a picture, sign, or electronic
broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

And first ammendment rights is not a defense for defamation or libel.

stephew
12-24-2006, 09:03 PM
This will be closed for a cooling off period and reopened with the expectation that there will no intimidation between users against each other.







Copyright © 2003-2018 ValueMD, LLC. All rights reserved.