More proof of Bill's DAI fraud
Ben Flieger
Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single post
in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
BaZ
Quote Source And Information
----------------------------
Newsgroup :comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Date :Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:12:01 GMT
Article ID :<6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
Poster :dsmart@NOSPAM
Address :dsmart@NOSPAM
dsmart@NOSPAM said absolutely nothing...
Keep up the good work Derek. This is the best post you have done in a
long time...
BaZ
--
<preemptive yawn>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Remove the PhD in my e-mail address to reply
Contact Derek Smart At: suprem...@bc3000ad.com or dsm...@pobox.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the Taco Supreme Commanders | "Some areas aboard the
Head Grow So Big It Explodes! | BattleCruiser are currently
See Ayn Rand Grow A Mustache And Say | off-line due to refitting.
That She Loves Cleve at: | All systems should be on-line
http://www.aros.net/~baz/tacblow.html | shortly." - Derek Smart, PhD
--------------------------------------|
Now THAT Smarts! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not sure where you go (sic) this boyo,
but it sho 'nuf didn't come from me." -D. Smart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smart
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:21:05 -0600, "Dan Brooks" <comput...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>Here's some further info, Bill et al.
>
>I called 1-800-521-3042 today, that's UMI, the folks that publish
>Dissertation Abstracts International. Spoke to Mary. Feel free to ask for
>her.
>
>1] "Not that many" European PhD dissertations are included in DAI,
>according to Mary at UMI.
>
>2] She flat-out told me that *not* all dissertations are included in DAI.
>Period.
>
>3] She said that whether a PhD dissertation is included in DAI is entirely
>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
>
>4] Bill, your claim is full of crap. How am I to believe otherwise? You
>stand behind this claim that you've made, over and over, holding it as your
>crown jewel of proof of Derek's PhD fraud. And your little Detractor
>Parrots echo your claims as if they have first-hand knowledge. Are you now
>going to rely on the word of that "librarian" of yours as "proof," now
>relegated to circumstantial "evidence" of this fraud?
>
>Bill, you are the fraud for making this claim. Unbelievable. This would
>really be funny if it weren't so sad.
>
>Dan Brooks
>========================
>Computer Rescue
>St. Louis, MO
>comput...@msn.com
>========================
>Dan Brooks wrote in message <34c50...@news.primary.net>...
>>The following is an example of what I have found thru the Net, to date.
>>Specific website in this instance is
>>http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/guides/rg9.htm
>>
>>"Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI). 1938 to current year (monthly
>>suppl.).
>>Bobst Ref 1 AS30.M5 [Low Bookcases #26, 27, & 28]
>>Contains citations and abstracts for all U.S. and Canadian dissertations
>>submitted to the publisher (a few universities, including Harvard and
>>University of Chicago, do not submit entries). Contains annual author
>index,
>>but no subject index since 1973 (use CDI for subject searching for 1973-).
>A
>>separate section lists some European dissertations (1976-1990), and
>starting
>>with 1990, also lists some titles from other countries."
>>
>>Note the reference to "a few [US and Canadian] universities, including
>>Harvard . . ." as not submitting entries.
>>
>>Note the reference to "some European dissertations . . ." being included.
>>
>>Hmmm. Bill, you stated that ALL PhD dissertaions are in DAI. Period. And
>>because Derek's wasn't there, that was sure proof of a PhD fraud. Bill,
>are
>>you a fraud and a liar? How can this be? Surely you don't massage the
>>facts in order to support your megalomania?
>>
>> Dan Brooks
>>========================
>>Computer Rescue
>>St. Louis, MO
>>comput...@msn.com
>>========================
>>
>>
>
Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
Battlecruiser:3000AD
UIN : 158435
WWW : www.bc3000ad.com
MAIL : dsm...@pobox.com
Recent interview at : www.avault.com/articles/smartint.asp
BC3K sci-fi story : www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/4739/index.html
Jimmy Chan
Ben Flieger (a...@primenet.remove.com) wrote:
:#Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single post
:#in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
That's how a superior mind works.
You know when people ask for proof of a PhD, DS says it's personal. But,
then turn around asking for proof of other stuff.
DS also seemed to forget once again to include BC3K in the header, but his
ego hates it when people ignore him via killfiles.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Dan Brooks
Ben Flieger wrote in message <6a3jc5$d...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>
>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single post
>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
>
And Ben, now that you've taken your shot, what do you think of Bill's Fraud?
Why are you not criticizing him?
Dan
Derek Smart
On 20 Jan 1998 18:35:01 -0700, "Ben Flieger" <a...@primenet.remove.com> wrote:
>
>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single post
>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
Shaddup.
Robert Whisler
>>3] She said that whether a PhD dissertation is included in DAI is entirely
>>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
Unfortunately, this just brings us back to square one: does Derek
Smart have a Ph.D. or not?
The question, of course, is totally irrelevant to c.s.i.p.g.s., but I
most admit, like the health nut who admits to a sweet tooth for
chocolate, that I get enjoyment from the "BC3K online game". It's
funny as hell watching the two sides go back and forth (the Unofficial
BC3K FAQ someone posted a while back made me laugh so hard it brought
tears to my eyes).
So, in regards to the question at hand, I'm inclined to believe that
Mr. Smart really doesn't have a Ph.D. If someone can't offer
substantive proof of this achievement, why should I believe them?
Anyone, even my 6 year-old nephew, can append a Ph.D. to their name.
Mr. Smart has demanded that people call him Dr. Smart, but says that
only employers will be given his references and educational
background. Huh?
If you demand a certain respect shown to you, prove to us first how
you've earned that respect. Mr. Smart has not done this. Moreover,
his reasons for not doing so are evasive, contradictory, and
incomplete.
My guess is that Mr. Smart did in fact write a thesis on computer
intelligence, but that it was either rejected by his department's
review panel, or was simply not Ph.D. material according to his
advisor. As a result, he did not formally receive a Ph.D., but to his
mind he did earn one because of his work, so he calls himself Dr.
Smart, having convinced himself that his work merits the title, even
though nothing was formally awarded to him.
This theory may explain why Mr. Smart is so defensive about the
subject, why he refuses to disclose the particulars of his supposed
Ph.D., and why no one can find it. I note that even to his supporters,
Mr. Smart has not offered any proof. None, as far as I know, has
said, "Yes, I know for a fact Derek Smart has a Ph.D."
If Mr. Smart would be kind enough to disclose to me the exact name of
his thesis and from what university he obtained his Ph.D., I will be
happy to verify the information at my own expense. If his claim turns
out to be true, I will post that fact (*without* the particulars that
Mr. Smart disclosed to me) on any forum(s) Mr. Smart desires. I never
bought BC3K, so I don't have an axe to grind or hidden agenda. I just
would like to know the truth to the mystery. Mr. Smart really has
nothing to lose. He's got a lot to gain; respect that may be due to
him, for one.
Until such time, it's "Mr. Smart" for me.
-robert
------------------------------------------
| Remove spam deterrent to reply via email |
------------------------------------------
Willy
>>stand behind this claim that you've made, over and over, holding it as
your
>>crown jewel of proof of Derek's PhD fraud.
Now you've gone and done it Derek, you have taken away the only claim to
fame that Bill had, now he has nothing of value in his life. I hope you are
happy <G>.
It is easy for you Derek, you have a PhD, you have a career, you have a
life...
Poor Bill only had his desire to defame you, now you have shown he is a
fraud and he will sulk for months...
--
Willy
...King, I didn't know we had one.
I thought we were an autonomous collective!
Monty Python
Willy
Dan Brooks wrote in message <34c60...@news.primary.net>...
>>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
>>
>
Fraud?
>Why are you not criticizing him?
>
Maybe because Bill & Ben are co-conspirators in this defamation of Mr Smart.
Maybe they actually think that people care about thier opinion, maybe they
think they will get some respect from this thread???
Dan Brooks
Robert Whisler wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:12:01 GMT, dsmart@NOSPAM@pobox.com (Derek
>Smart) wrote:
>
>
>>>3] She said that whether a PhD dissertation is included in DAI is
entirely
>>>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
>
>Unfortunately, this just brings us back to square one: does Derek
>Smart have a Ph.D. or not?
Agreed. In part. What you fail to acknowledge is that this serves to show
the lengths to which the truth is twisted, and used as some substantial
proof. Bill's proof was garbage. Whatever you choose to assume about the
PhD is your perrogative. Just don't believe some of the "proofs" given so
far and do you independent thinking. If it floats your boat to keep up the
PhD discussion, go for it. Just ask yourself why.
Dan
Bill Huffman
In article <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
Derek Smart <dsmart@NOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:21:05 -0600, "Dan Brooks" <comput...@email.msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I called 1-800-521-3042 today, that's UMI, the folks that publish
>>Dissertation Abstracts International. Spoke to Mary. Feel free to ask for
>>her.
>>
>>1] "Not that many" European PhD dissertations are included in DAI,
>>according to Mary at UMI.
>>
>>2] She flat-out told me that *not* all dissertations are included in DAI.
>>Period.
>>
>>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
>>
>>stand behind this claim that you've made, over and over, holding it as your
Dan, what I stated was my understanding. I apologize if this caused
anyone any consternation. However, I fail to see how this significantly
changes anything? Derek has already admitted that he is not listed.
If anything it shows that Derek the man who claims to have a PhD doesn't
know how PhD's work. It is also stated in my "proof" that UMI was also
searched.
Oh by the way did you ask her opinion of someone that claims they have a
PhD, yet they're not listed anywhere,
they refuse to name their alma mater,
and, they used to claim their dissertation was published until it was proven
that it was not and then they changed their story to say it was suppressed?
>
>Derek Smart, Ph.D. NOT!
P.S. Derek, thank you for your contribution to this post.
It was much more insightful and truthful than most of your posts.
(I copied the whole thing, except the end of the sig. If you missed
Derek's contribution, just go back and look for the lines with a
single '>' in the left column.
Bill Huffman
I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
it can be remedied.
Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
INTRODUCTION
Derek has claimed to have a PhD in every post he's made that I've seen.
Historically (prior to Aug. 1997), whenever anyone had asked about
details he was strangely silent. The biggest braggart many have ever
seen being silent on such occasions seemed very "out of character".
This coupled with my observation of many months of Derek lies, lead me
to conclude that Derek's PhD was likely fake. After gathering further
evidence, I believe this is now an inescapable conclusion.
SUMMARY
Here's the proof that Derek's PhD is a fraud. It consists of three
firmly established facts. These facts taken together, prove that his PhD
is a fraud. Derek has not earned a PhD at any accredited university.
FACT 1: Derek Smart is not listed in DAI or UMI.
All published PhD dissertations are listed in DAI or UMI.
FACT 2: Derek is unable to provide simple information.
Derek is unable to name his alma mater, among other things.
FACT 3: Derek Smart has changed the story about his PhD.
He said his dissertation was published now, he says it's not.
VERIFICATION
It's very important to note that everything stated here has been
verified by multiple people and can be verified by you. You may
visit your local college library to verify that dissertations
should be listed in DAI or UMI. You may look in www.dejanews.com to
verify the rest. The most interesting period is between the dates
of about 8/24/97 and about 9/9/97. The most interesting threads
being "Derek Smart = Habitual Liar", "Proof - Derek PhD NOT!",
and "DEREK SMART - PhD?". For those of you that are less research
oriented, Fthx has collected together much of the most interesting
material in http://members.aol.com/fthx/bc3k in the PhD Fraud
Anthology collections. DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology2.txt contains
the full posts and DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology.txt contains the
parts of the posts that are most interesting.
FACT 1: Derek Smart is not listed in DAI or UMI.
Almost all PhD candidates are required to write a PhD dissertation
(thesis). Even though Derek claims to have done a dissertation,
it is not listed. Derek has said that his PhD dissertation title
was "Artificial Intelligence & the art of computerized thinking".
He has also said it was entitled "The Art of Computerized Thinking".
Every dissertation ever published is collected together by the
schools to facilitate the further advancement of academic research
and human knowledge. This list is available on CD-ROM at most
colleges around the world. It's called Dissertation Abstracts
International (DAI). A similiar list is called UMI. Upon searching
this information, no Derek Smart shows up. No dissertation with the
title Derek claims for his dissertation shows up.
The search was done and verified by multiple people. Multiple people
reported that different librarians have said that it should be in the
records, if he had a PhD. The records covered the USA, Canada and most
of western Europe and all the way back to 1861.
Derek Smart now admits that his dissertation has never been
published and is not listed. (See copy of post at the end.)
FACT 2: Derek is unable to provide simple information.
There are two very simple pieces of information that Derek has
never been able to provide. This would be well known and simple
for anyone that had really earned a PhD.
The first thing that Derek has never reasonably explained is:
How did he get a PhD without publishing or listing his dissertation?
The only explanation Derek has ever given is that he suppressed
publication because he wanted to keep his secret BC3K neural network
code a secret. There have been at least two posts from PhDs in this
news group (c.s.i.p.g.s.) that have stated that a PhD candidate cannot
suppress publication on their own, without withdrawing from the
program. The primary owner of the dissertation is the school. If the
candidate withdraws from the PhD program then, they don't get a PhD.
The most important bit of information that Derek has never been able
to reveal is his college. The standard response when someone asks
for details about a claimed PhD is to name the school. It's very
suspicious to not give this information when asked. Derek has been
asked many times. He has said that he studied only part time. He's
said that he studied in the USA and England. He's seemed to imply
that it was a mail order college. He's more recently seemed to say
it was in England. He is not able to provide the name of his
school because, it would be a simple matter to call the college
administration office and verify that Derek never earned a PhD there.
Here are the reasons Derek has claimed he's "unwilling" to name
his alma mater. (in approximate chronological order)
1. You do your homework.(B.H. Mar '97, told to editors of PCGamer&Boot)
2. I have a bet with Bill Huffman, though he won't take it.
3. I want Bill Huffman to have to pay for this.
4. I will not be blackmailed.
5. It is personal information. (B.H. On a contradictory note, he says
it will be in his biography that is currently being done. From August
to about November 1997, this seemed to be Derek's main reason.)
6. If I reveal my alma mater then, the detractors will just find
something else to flame me about. (B.H. This is an extra lame attempt
because I have said that if his PhD is validated I will write a public
apology and never post to a Derek Smart thread again. Other
detractors have said they would also abide by this.)
7. The detractors will just make fun of my school.
(B.H. This is extra lame for the same reason as number 6.)
8. The detractors will bother my professors. (B.H. Degree
validation is handled by administration clerks not, professors.)
9. I don't want people bothering my school. (B.H. This is lame
because administration clerks respond to requests for degree
validation very quickly and efficiently. To get a copy of a
dissertation, it costs about $75 so, librarians wouldn't be
bothered either.)
10. It might break the frame to scan my diploma.
11. I have my reasons. (B.H. currently Derek's favorite)
FACT 3: Derek Smart has changed his story.
In my opinion, the sure sign of a big lie is when the liar changes
his story. Derek has done this on too many occasions for me to be
able to describe them all here. The changes to Derek's story that
are most problematical for him, involve his dissertation.
Derek said his dissertation was published and listed. When I said it
couldn't be found then, Derek said I was a liar. He said it wasn't
possible to search worldwide for a dissertation. He said it was
"published and listed" and he pleaded that no one else should search.
When other people said they couldn't find it either then, he said
that the searches failed because his real name is Derek K?????-Smart.
He refused to reveal his K???? name, only that it began with the
letter K. When searches were done that proved that there was no
K??????-Smart with a dissertation, he changed his story again and
admitted it was never listed or published.
Another part of the story that Derek has changed is about the bet he
made with me August 1997. I challenged him to name his school because,
I thought his PhD was likely fake. He responded by saying that he
would bet me that each one of his 3 degrees (math & CS) is valid for
6 months of my salary for each degree. He's now changed his story and
is saying the bet was that I couldn't find his dissertation. His
dissertation was not mentioned until I exposed that Derek had never
published or listed a dissertation. I believe Derek said this lie to
try and cover up his lie about his dissertation being published.
Both of Derek's story changes can be verified by going to
http://members.aol.com/fthx/bc3k/DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology2.txt.
This last story change will also require you to reference a copy
of a part of a post at the end of this proof.
CONCLUSION
If someone claims they have a PhD and their thesis couldn't be found,
you'd be suspicious. If they claimed they did a dissertation to get
a PhD and it couldn't be found anywhere you'd be extremely suspicious
of the PhD. If someone claims they have a PhD but, won't name their
school, you'd be very suspicious. If they could name their school
and put to shame and be rid of a bunch "detractors" but, still don't
name their school, you'd have to be extremely suspicious. When you
add those extremely suspicious facts together with the fact that
very important parts of Derek's "PhD story" have changed, I believe
it proves that Derek doesn't have a PhD, beyond any reasonable doubt.
RELEVENCE
The point of Derek's PhD being proven a fraud, from my point of view,
is that it proves that Derek Smart is a habitual liar. It is
irrelevant when it comes to evaluating whether or not BC3K is a good
or bad game. It is very relevant and fun for BC3K the online game.
It should be very relevant when it comes to evaluating the truth in
whatever Derek is saying.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION - LIBRARIAN'S SEARCH
Searches were also done for anything published by Derek Smart.
Here is where one professional librarian searched.
the Dissertations Abstract Online
Sci Search.
UMI- both on line and telephone
IEEE and IE(UK) database from 1988 forward. Doesn't seem he
has written anything for those pubs.
ACM Guide to all ACM Pubs. no luck
OCLC online nothing no books, dissertation, or papers
Stanford Technical papers database
Cambridge UK Technical papers database. These also came up
empty.
The point of all these failed searches is that we were trying to
establish if Derek was ever enrolled in a post graduate program
anywhere. This couldn't be done since all searches came up empty.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION - COPY OF A DEREK SMART POST
This is a partial copy of a post that shows that Derek now admits
that his dissertation is not listed or published. It also shows
that Derek has tried to change his story on the bet when you
compare this to the actual bet in
http://members.aol.com/fthx/bc3k/DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology2.txt
From: dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart)
Subject: Re: Question for Derek
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Newsgroups: alt.games.bc3000ad
Organization: 3000AD
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 16:17:10 +0000
...snip...
When Bill took off looking for my thesis, I knew for a fact that
he wouldn't find it but I was curious to see where it would go. Now, why on
Earth would I challenge him, to the extent of putting out a bet and given the
nature of the comms medium, to find it?
...snip the rest .....
---------
Unfortunately for Derek, he got tangled in his own web of lies. He
thought he could claim that the lies that his dissertation was published
could all be dispositioned as trying to get me to go on a wild goose
chase. However, he forgot that he had told the PCGamer and Boot magazine
editors to look up his dissertation back in March 1997.
(See Fthx's collection.)
Bill Huffman
In article <34c60...@news.primary.net>,
Dan Brooks <comput...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Ben Flieger wrote in message <6a3jc5$d...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>
>>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single post
>>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
>>
>
>And Ben, now that you've taken your shot, what do you think of Bill's Fraud?
>Why are you not criticizing him?
>
>
>
Dan, what fraud is that? When playing the game, I'm concerned about two
things, truth and entertainment. I do not sacrifice truth for getting
at Derek. That wouldn't be fun. I'm not talking about an entertaining
troll now and then or an entertaining sarcastic post. I'm talking about
actual fraud or lying. In BC3K the on-line game, the only person I
know of (either supportters or detractors) that does NOT try to tell
the truth is Derek Smart.
Dan Brooks
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6a5g8k$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>In article <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>Derek Smart <dsmart@NOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:21:05 -0600, "Dan Brooks"
<comput...@email.msn.com>
[various stuff snipped]
>Dan, what I stated was my understanding. I apologize if this caused
>anyone any consternation.
Apology acepted, for the consternation. Problem is, you stated it as BLUNT
FACT and presented it as irrefutable proof of a PhD fraud. You found a
librarian that said what you wanted to here [no telling what leading
questions you asked him/her] and you ran with it. It was easy to find the
truth of the matter, but you really weren't interested in that.
However, I fail to see how this significantly
>changes anything? Derek has already admitted that he is not listed.
>If anything it shows that Derek the man who claims to have a PhD doesn't
>know how PhD's work.
C'mon, Bill. It proves a PhD does not have to be available in DAI and that
because you can't find it on a database it is not the proof you claim of a
PhD fraud. Plain and simple. Derek says he's not listed. How does that
prove anything? An author can decline listing according to UMI.
You used this DAI fact as numero uno reason that Derek's PhD was a fraud.
You posted that numerous occasions. All you are left with is subjective
arguments, which are your perrogative. But you have no hard facts that
prove diddly. Everything changes, and hopefully you will just let go of
this PhD thing.
It is also stated in my "proof" that UMI was also
>searched.
So?
>Oh by the way did you ask her opinion of someone that claims they have a
>PhD, yet they're not listed anywhere,
>they refuse to name their alma mater,
>and, they used to claim their dissertation was published until it was
proven
>that it was not and then they changed their story to say it was suppressed?
No. But I'm sure that's the kind of questioning that's right up your alley,
Bill. Give it a rest.
Dan
Derek Smart
On 21 Jan 1998 10:54:12 -0800, huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Bill
Huffman) wrote:
<snip>
>Dan, what I stated was my understanding. I apologize if this caused
>anyone any consternation. However, I fail to see how this significantly
>changes anything? Derek has already admitted that he is not listed.
>If anything it shows that Derek the man who claims to have a PhD doesn't
>know how PhD's work. It is also stated in my "proof" that UMI was also
>searched.
>
>Oh by the way did you ask her opinion of someone that claims they have a
>PhD, yet they're not listed anywhere,
>they refuse to name their alma mater,
>and, they used to claim their dissertation was published until it was proven
>that it was not and then they changed their story to say it was suppressed?
Shuttup Bill, you're cold busted. Apologise and go find a corner.
Derek Smart
On 21 Jan 1998 11:26:59 -0800, huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Bill
Huffman) wrote:
>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>it can be remedied.
This only proves ONE thing, I was right all along that NOTHING will stop your
crap. Even though you've been PROVEN to be a liar, a fraud and a Usenet
jackass, you think ANYONE is going to read your 'corrected' bullshit when
originally you warranted that is was proof?
>Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
Your versions of proof.
Derek Smart
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:04:22 -0600, "Dan Brooks" <comput...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>Robert Whisler wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:12:01 GMT, dsmart@NOSPAM@pobox.com (Derek
>>Smart) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>3] She said that whether a PhD dissertation is included in DAI is
>entirely
>>>>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
>>
>>Unfortunately, this just brings us back to square one: does Derek
>>Smart have a Ph.D. or not?
>
>
>Agreed. In part. What you fail to acknowledge is that this serves to show
>the lengths to which the truth is twisted, and used as some substantial
>proof. Bill's proof was garbage. Whatever you choose to assume about the
>PhD is your perrogative. Just don't believe some of the "proofs" given so
>far and do you independent thinking. If it floats your boat to keep up the
>PhD discussion, go for it. Just ask yourself why.
>
>Dan
Dan, wait'll you see Bill's latest. Remember when I said he wouldn't quit no
matter what?
Dan Brooks
Bill, Bill, Bill.
Your "thank you" is also a fraud. All you do is throw UMI into the mix and
you think you have it covered. This is laughable.
Do you even know what "UMI" is?
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6a5i63$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>it can be remedied.
>
>Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>
>
>INTRODUCTION
>Derek has claimed to have a PhD in every post he's made that I've seen.
>Historically (prior to Aug. 1997), whenever anyone had asked about
>details he was strangely silent. The biggest braggart many have ever
>seen being silent on such occasions seemed very "out of character".
>This coupled with my observation of many months of Derek lies, lead me
>to conclude that Derek's PhD was likely fake. After gathering further
>evidence, I believe this is now an inescapable conclusion.
>
>SUMMARY
>Here's the proof that Derek's PhD is a fraud. It consists of three
>firmly established facts. These facts taken together, prove that his PhD
>is a fraud. Derek has not earned a PhD at any accredited university.
>
>FACT 1: Derek Smart is not listed in DAI or UMI.
> All published PhD dissertations are listed in DAI or UMI.
That is completely untrue. UMI *publishes* DAI, among other things. Did
your librarian give you this info, too?
>FACT 2: Derek is unable to provide simple information.
> Derek is unable to name his alma mater, among other things.
Been there. Done that.
>FACT 3: Derek Smart has changed the story about his PhD.
> He said his dissertation was published now, he says it's not.
So? You said I pointed out an inaccuracy in your case, and then you go
ahead and repeat the same thing. UMI is *not* a database.
>VERIFICATION
>It's very important to note that everything stated here has been
>verified by multiple people and can be verified by you. You may
>visit your local college library to verify that dissertations
>should be listed in DAI or UMI. You may look in www.dejanews.com to
>verify the rest. The most interesting period is between the dates
>of about 8/24/97 and about 9/9/97. The most interesting threads
>being "Derek Smart = Habitual Liar", "Proof - Derek PhD NOT!",
>and "DEREK SMART - PhD?". For those of you that are less research
>oriented, Fthx has collected together much of the most interesting
>material in http://members.aol.com/fthx/bc3k in the PhD Fraud
>Anthology collections. DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology2.txt contains
>the full posts and DerekSmartPhDFraudAnthology.txt contains the
>parts of the posts that are most interesting.
>
>
>FACT 1: Derek Smart is not listed in DAI or UMI.
>
>Almost all PhD candidates are required to write a PhD dissertation
>(thesis). Even though Derek claims to have done a dissertation,
>it is not listed. Derek has said that his PhD dissertation title
>was "Artificial Intelligence & the art of computerized thinking".
>He has also said it was entitled "The Art of Computerized Thinking".
>
>Every dissertation ever published is collected together by the
>schools to facilitate the further advancement of academic research
>and human knowledge.
Baloney, baloney, baloney.
This list is available on CD-ROM at most
>colleges around the world. It's called Dissertation Abstracts
>International (DAI). A similiar list is called UMI.
LOL. Sorry. Wrong again.
Upon searching
>this information, no Derek Smart shows up. No dissertation with the
>title Derek claims for his dissertation shows up.
>
>The search was done and verified by multiple people. Multiple people
>reported that different librarians have said that it should be in the
>records, if he had a PhD.
The librarians are in on the conspiracy too!
The records covered the USA, Canada and most
>of western Europe and all the way back to 1861.
>
>Derek Smart now admits that his dissertation has never been
>published and is not listed. (See copy of post at the end.)
>
>
>FACT 2: Derek is unable to provide simple information.
>
>There are two very simple pieces of information that Derek has
>never been able to provide. This would be well known and simple
>for anyone that had really earned a PhD.
>
>The first thing that Derek has never reasonably explained is:
>How did he get a PhD without publishing or listing his dissertation?
>The only explanation Derek has ever given is that he suppressed
>publication because he wanted to keep his secret BC3K neural network
>code a secret. There have been at least two posts from PhDs in this
>news group (c.s.i.p.g.s.) that have stated that a PhD candidate cannot
>suppress publication on their own, without withdrawing from the
>program.
They were wrong. Just like you. Bring 'em back to talk about it.
[balance of crap snipped]
Bill, I guess I must conclude you are either a fool or a liar.
Dan
Dan Brooks
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6a5pjf$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>In article <34c60...@news.primary.net>,
>Dan Brooks <comput...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ben Flieger wrote in message <6a3jc5$d...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>>
>>>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>
>>>Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single
post
>>>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
>>>
>>
>>And Ben, now that you've taken your shot, what do you think of Bill's
Fraud?
>>Why are you not criticizing him?
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>Dan, what fraud is that?
Duh.
When playing the game, I'm concerned about two
>things, truth and entertainment. I do not sacrifice truth for getting
>at Derek.
You wrote that with a straight face? LOL. Your credibility is nearly as
low as BP's.
That wouldn't be fun. I'm not talking about an entertaining
>troll now and then or an entertaining sarcastic post. I'm talking about
>actual fraud or lying. In BC3K the on-line game, the only person I
>know of (either supportters or detractors) that does NOT try to tell
>the truth is Derek Smart.
Gee, Bill, what a surprise you take that position.
Dan
Timothy Honke
Robert Whisler wrote:
SNIP
> If Mr. Smart would be kind enough to disclose to me the exact name of
> his thesis and from what university he obtained his Ph.D., I will be
> happy to verify the information at my own expense. If his claim turns
> out to be true, I will post that fact (*without* the particulars that
> Mr. Smart disclosed to me) on any forum(s) Mr. Smart desires. I never
> bought BC3K, so I don't have an axe to grind or hidden agenda. I just
> would like to know the truth to the mystery. Mr. Smart really has
> nothing to lose. He's got a lot to gain; respect that may be due to
> him, for one.
> Until such time, it's "Mr. Smart" for me.
> -robert
> ------------------------------------------
> | Remove spam deterrent to reply via email |
> ------------------------------------------
Why not just post the text file version of the paper to the
newsgroup...or give it a website address....
Dan Brooks
Derek Smart wrote in message <6a5t35$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:04:22 -0600, "Dan Brooks"
<comput...@email.msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Robert Whisler wrote in message ...
>>>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:12:01 GMT, dsmart@NOSPAM@pobox.com (Derek
>>>Smart) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>3] She said that whether a PhD dissertation is included in DAI is
>>entirely
>>>>>up to the University, and to the dissertation's author.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, this just brings us back to square one: does Derek
>>>Smart have a Ph.D. or not?
>>
>>
>>Agreed. In part. What you fail to acknowledge is that this serves to
show
>>the lengths to which the truth is twisted, and used as some substantial
>>proof. Bill's proof was garbage. Whatever you choose to assume about the
>>PhD is your perrogative. Just don't believe some of the "proofs" given so
>>far and do you independent thinking. If it floats your boat to keep up
the
>>PhD discussion, go for it. Just ask yourself why.
>>
>>Dan
>
>Dan, wait'll you see Bill's latest. Remember when I said he wouldn't quit
no
>matter what?
I saw it, and I can't belive it. It's as if he missed the whole story. Out
to lunch, permanently I'm afraid.
And they say it will all end IF . . . LOL. They can't see the forest for
the trees.
Dan
rotting corpse
Bill Huffman wrote:
>
> I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
> my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
> that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
> it can be remedied.
>
> Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>
"not proof"? lies?
but you SAID it was proof! Does that make you a liar?
You hyped up how you had evidence of his fraud only for it to turn up
somewhat of a bunk. you are just as bad as you say Derek is, liar.
--Rotting Corpse
Ben Flieger
Derek Smart wrote in message <6a5t30$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>On 21 Jan 1998 11:26:59 -0800, huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Bill
>Huffman) wrote:
>
>>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>>it can be remedied.
>
>This only proves ONE thing, I was right all along that NOTHING will stop
your
>crap. Even though you've been PROVEN to be a liar, a fraud and a Usenet
>jackass,
Man, your ego inserts itself again. We are talking about BILL, not you.
Moron.
you think ANYONE is going to read your 'corrected' bullshit when
>originally you warranted that is was proof?
Do you think ANYONE is going to buy your "enhanced" game when you originally
warranted that it was complete way back when?
>
>>Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>
>Your versions of proof.
Shaddap ho, your lies are 1824798236x what Bill's inaccuracy is.
Riboflavin
Willy wrote in message <6a5c6q$fru$1...@news.on>...
>It is easy for you Derek, you have a PhD, you have a career, you have a
>life...
>
I don't think a line of work qualifies as a "career" if you don't get paid
for it. Also, what is it with this "get a life" business? Derek posts more
than any one of the detractors. Logically, Derek ought to have the least
life.
--
Kevin Allegood ri...@mindspring.com
ELASTIC BACON!
HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This
Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on
Its Velocity Relative to the User.
BaZ
Quote Source And Information
----------------------------
Date :21 Jan 1998 11:26:59 -0800
Article ID :<6a5i63$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
Poster :Bill Huffman
Address :huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM
Bill Huffman said...
>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>it can be remedied.
I would like to point out this inaccuracy:
You refer to him as Derek instead of The Lying Egotistical Mouth
Peeing Dipshit.
BaZ
--
<preemptive yawn and shut up>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Remove the PhD in my e-mail address to reply
Send mail to Derek At: suprem...@bc3000ad.com or dsm...@pobox.com
Send mail to his PR guy at bigj...@mindspring.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the Taco Supreme Commanders | "Some areas aboard the
Head Grow So Big It Explodes! | BattleCruiser are currently
See Ayn Rand Grow A Mustache And Say | off-line due to refitting.
That She Loves Cleve at: | All systems should be on-line
http://www.aros.net/~baz/tacblow.html | shortly." - Derek Smart, PhD?
--------------------------------------|
Now THAT Smarts! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go get raped..." -D. Smart PhD?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BaZ
Quote Source And Information
----------------------------
Newsgroup :alt.games.bc3000ad
Article ID :<34c67...@news.primary.net>
Poster :Dan Brooks
Address :comput...@email.msn.com
Dan Brooks said...
>C'mon, Bill. It proves a PhD does not have to be available in DAI and that
>because you can't find it on a database it is not the proof you claim of a
>PhD fraud. Plain and simple. Derek says he's not listed. How does that
>prove anything? An author can decline listing according to UMI.
>
Look, who gives a flying fuck if it is or it is not. The bottom line is,
Derek has mishandled the entire issue. He can argue all he wants to the
contrary but there are plenty of people who think so no matter what he
says. It is highly unlikely that you can find any dissertations from UK
tech schools on CS circa 1983 in DAI anyway.
I lived in the UK for about 2 years and have plenty of contacts over
there. I visit once a year or so. I am getting ready to start calling all
UK tech schools one by one to find out where he went to school. There are
not that many of them that offer a PhD in computer science. It is
probable that his school has gone out of 'business'. In the UK, there are
often little trade schools that spring up and then dissapear. One of
them may have offered a program like the one he claims. This may be one
of the reasons he doesn't divulge the info.
BaZ
<preemptive yawn and shut up>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Remove the PhD in my e-mail address to reply
Send mail to Derek At: suprem...@bc3000ad.com or dsm...@pobox.com
Send mail to his PR guy at bigj...@mindspring.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the Taco Supreme Commanders | "Some areas aboard the
Head Grow So Big It Explodes! | BattleCruiser are currently
See Ayn Rand Grow A Mustache And Say | off-line due to refitting.
That She Loves Cleve at: | All systems should be on-line
http://www.aros.net/~baz/tacblow.html | shortly." - Derek Smart, PhD
--------------------------------------|
Now THAT Smarts! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go get raped..." -D. Smart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Brooks
Ben Flieger wrote in message <6a661q$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>
>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a5t30$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>On 21 Jan 1998 11:26:59 -0800, huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Bill
>>Huffman) wrote:
>>
>>>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>>>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>>>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>>>it can be remedied.
>>
>>This only proves ONE thing, I was right all along that NOTHING will stop
>your
>>crap. Even though you've been PROVEN to be a liar, a fraud and a Usenet
>>jackass,
>
>Man, your ego inserts itself again. We are talking about BILL, not you.
>Moron.
Ben you are really having a tough time following this aren't you? "Bill" is
talking about his "proof." His new improved revised "proof."
Derek points out that, as he's said before, Bill doesn't want the facts to
get in the way of his continued efforts to display his wonderful proof.
"We are talking about Bill" has NOTHING to do with this sequence.
Moron.
Dan
Tony
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6a5i63$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
I reckon you should stop wasting your life on this issue. Noone really
gives a damn when you get down to it. If a person says he has got or done
something, then that person is entitled to be believed. To carry out a
vendetta against someone is a little petty, and can destroy someones life,
just because you dont believe what they said. Will the facts if incorrect
really improve your life. I think not, you will get five minutes pleasure
or dissapointment, depending on what the outcome of you time wasting ends up
to be. Would you like someone to start investigating you and publish every
thing bad you ever did, like when you stopped wetting the bed, how you acted
on your first date, your school records and other personel stuff. Not that
anyone would really bother themselves with that, I'm making a point, but
think about it.
Your on this planet for such a short time, make a positive mark and die
happy when your time comes.
TC
Derek Smart
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:42:12 -0500, "Riboflavin" <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Willy wrote in message <6a5c6q$fru$1...@news.on>...
>
>>It is easy for you Derek, you have a PhD, you have a career, you have a
>>life...
>>
>I don't think a line of work qualifies as a "career" if you don't get paid
>for it. Also, what is it with this "get a life" business? Derek posts more
>than any one of the detractors. Logically, Derek ought to have the least
>life.
More bullshit. Go check the posting ratio against yours, sixballs, Bills etc
I just did, you're WRONG again and as Dan says, STILL without a clue.
B P
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:17:35 -0600, "Dan Brooks"
<comput...@email.msn.com> wrote:
Dan Dan dan
you are in serious denial.
>Bill, Bill, Bill.
>
>
>Bill, I guess I must conclude you are either a fool or a liar.
topical.
>
>Dan
>
>
B P
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:31:15 GMT, dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>On 21 Jan 1998 11:26:59 -0800, huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Bill
>Huffman) wrote:
>
>>I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>>it can be remedied.
>
>This only proves ONE thing, I was right all along that NOTHING will stop your
>crap. Even though you've been PROVEN to be a liar, a fraud and a Usenet
>jackass, you think ANYONE is going to read your 'corrected' bullshit when
>originally you warranted that is was proof?
>
>>Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>
>Your versions of proof.
>
<yawn>
B P
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:32:41 -0800, rotting corpse
<rotting...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bill Huffman wrote:
>>
>> I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>> my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>> that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>> it can be remedied.
>>
>> Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>>
>
> HA! So if this is proof, does that make what was before it
>"not proof"? lies?
> but you SAID it was proof! Does that make you a liar?
>You hyped up how you had evidence of his fraud only for it to turn up
>somewhat of a bunk. you are just as bad as you say Derek is, liar.
> --Rotting Corpse
twit ! learn to reason.
B P
>
>And they say it will all end IF . . . LOL. They can't see the forest for
>the trees.
Hell of a statment from a blind person DB.
>
>Dan
>
>
Dan Brooks
Sorry, TC, I tried saying the same kind of thing a long time ago. It's
falling on deaf ears. They are having way too much fun.
Wait for the excuses to roll in. The get quite laughable.
Dan Brooks
========================
Computer Rescue
St. Louis, MO
comput...@msn.com
========================
Tony wrote in message <88547201...@master.key.net.au>...
Dan Brooks
Derek Smart wrote in message <6a7hst$e...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Ribo, gotta agree with Derek here. Maybe there are times when Derek post
more than you, but, take BP[sixball] for example. Derek posts more than
him? Perhaps you overlooked BP. I try to .
Dan
Dan Brooks
B P wrote in message <6a7ji0$5...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:32:41 -0800, rotting corpse
><rotting...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Huffman wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to thank Dan Brooks for pointing an inaccuracy in
>>> my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>>> that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>>> it can be remedied.
>>>
>>> Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>>>
>>
>> HA! So if this is proof, does that make what was before it
>>"not proof"? lies?
>> but you SAID it was proof! Does that make you a liar?
>>You hyped up how you had evidence of his fraud only for it to turn up
>>somewhat of a bunk. you are just as bad as you say Derek is, liar.
>> --Rotting Corpse
>twit ! learn to reason.
LOL. That coming from BP/Sixball, the biggest Parrot joke in the newsgroup.
The guy who can't produce an original thought, but prefers the old one-liner
pointless hit-and-run. LOL.
BP/sixball, you've been a pretty crappy game-player for quite some time now,
bouncing around inserting examples of your "skill." Have you noticed how
alone you are in all of this? Do you realize you've been disowned by your
compadries, much in the same way Bill Huffman has? You just aren't worth it
any more. You've been playing the same stale cards for way too long.
Here's the deal, Parrot. I'll try my best to let you do your little thingy
without interruption. I might break in to make a point now and then, but
for the most part you can make a fool of yourself without my help. You do
it *so* well.
Have a nice day.
Dan
B P
LOL
you need to try harder ! LOL This is like Derek claiming to have kill
filed us. LOL
>
>Dan
>
>
B P
Nope didn't notice . Did you notice your the only Derek Parrot ?
>
>Here's the deal, Parrot. I'll try my best to let you do your little thingy
>without interruption. I might break in to make a point now and then, but
>for the most part you can make a fool of yourself without my help. You do
>it *so* well.
Gee thanks coming from a Derek Parrot like you that doen't mean shit.
>
>Have a nice day.
Gee your a nice asshole, thanks
>
>Dan
>
>
Dan Brooks
B P wrote in message <6a81cu$5...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
God are you stupid, BP.
Here;
Ribo [I believe] "Derek posts more than...his detractors..."
Derek "...bullshit..."
Me "...gotta agree with Derek...take BP...for example..."
You [classic non sequitor] "...blah, blah, blah..."
Perry Quan
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:06:41 GMT, six...@worldnet.att.net (B P)
wrote:
<yadda yadda yadda>
JESUS FUCKING MURPHY!
Can you folks please put BC3K in the subject of your posts? It's
damned annoying to keep adding more subjects to the kill file as you
guys continually invent new subjects.
I don't own BC3K and don't give a fart if it's the best strategy game
ever written or the most infamous drink coaster ever foisted on the
gaming community.
Please, as a courtesy for those of us who just don't give a damn about
BC3K, add BC3K to your subject line.
Joel
>>Here's the new and improved proof of Derek Smart's PhD fraud!
>
We're still waiting for your version of proof.......
Joel
Dan Brooks
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6ab3bs$4...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>>That wouldn't be fun. I'm not talking about an entertaining
>>>troll now and then or an entertaining sarcastic post. I'm talking about
>>>actual fraud or lying. In BC3K the on-line game, the only person I
>>>know of (either supportters or detractors) that does NOT try to tell
>>>the truth is Derek Smart.
>>
>>
>>Gee, Bill, what a surprise you take that position.
>>
>>Dan
>
>Dan, I'm just one of the on-line game players. I don't know anyone
>that posts in the online game except through the on-line game and a
>few email's exchanged regarding the on-line game.
You missed the point, Billy. I'm not saying you do or don't "know" any of
the posters. Your claim that Derek is the only liar here is *interesting*
to say the least.
I never even got
>suckered into buying BC3K so I don't even have that axe to grind.
>
>Yet a probable employee of Derek says "Gee, Bill, what a surprise you
>take that position." If anybody here has ulterior motives, it would
>be you, Dan.
What a hoot. Falling back on one of the crutches to explain how anyone
could *possibly* diagree with you. LOL. Weak. And again, Billy, I've not
said anything there about "ulterior motives." Getting a bit paranoid aren't
you?
>P.S. Does Derek give you anything besides bullshit promises?
LOL. I've covered that one already. You must have been at the "library."
Dan
Dan Brooks
Bill the victim! LOL Keep it up. It's cute.
Dan Brooks
========================
Computer Rescue
St. Louis, MO
comput...@msn.com
========================
Bill Huffman wrote in message <6ab3p1$4...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>In article <6a5c6q$fru$1...@news.on>, Willy <wan...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>>Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:21:05 -0600, "Dan Brooks"
>><comput...@email.msn.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>4] Bill, your claim is full of crap. How am I to believe otherwise?
You
>>>>stand behind this claim that you've made, over and over, holding it as
>>your
>>>>crown jewel of proof of Derek's PhD fraud.
>>
>>Now you've gone and done it Derek, you have taken away the only claim to
>>fame that Bill had, now he has nothing of value in his life. I hope you
are
>>happy <G>.
>>
>>It is easy for you Derek, you have a PhD, you have a career, you have a
>>life...
>>
>>Poor Bill only had his desire to defame you, now you have shown he is a
>>fraud and he will sulk for months...
>
>First, Derek destroys me by spamming this news group with a 3000 line post
>and then he sends his minions in to kick me while I'm down. He should
>be feeling sorry for me, since I have no life!
Stuart Park
> >I reckon you should stop wasting your life on this issue. Noone really
> >gives a damn when you get down to it. If a person says he has got or done
> >something, then that person is entitled to be believed. To carry out a
> >vendetta against someone is a little petty, and can destroy someones life,
> >just because you dont believe what they said.
Dan Brooks (comput...@email.msn.com) wrote:
> Sorry, TC, I tried saying the same kind of thing a long time ago. It's
> falling on deaf ears. They are having way too much fun.
Those words at the top seem very relevant to you, Dan..
You do seem to be carrying out a vendetta against Bill,
because you don't believe what he said. You do seem to
be wasting your life on this issue.
(how many messages have you written in this newsgroup
in the last week?)
So if you have tried saying the same kind of thing, perhaps
you could try following the advice yourself.
--
"If only he used his talent for niceness, instead of evil"
- Get Smart
Stuart Park
E-Mail: stuart @ banana.psd.com.au Melbourne, Australia
Bill Huffman
In article <34c67...@news.primary.net>,
Dan Brooks <comput...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Huffman wrote in message <6a5pjf$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>...
>>In article <34c60...@news.primary.net>,
>>Dan Brooks <comput...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ben Flieger wrote in message <6a3jc5$d...@nntp02.primenet.com>...>>>>Derek, are you so astoundingly stupid you have to repost every-single
>post
>>>>in support of you? Is your ego that fragile?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And Ben, now that you've taken your shot, what do you think of Bill's
>Fraud?
>>>Why are you not criticizing him?
>>>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>>
>>Dan, what fraud is that?
>
>Duh.
>
>When playing the game, I'm concerned about two
>>things, truth and entertainment. I do not sacrifice truth for getting
>>at Derek.
>
>You wrote that with a straight face? LOL. Your credibility is nearly as
>low as BP's.
>
>That wouldn't be fun. I'm not talking about an entertaining
>>troll now and then or an entertaining sarcastic post. I'm talking about
>>actual fraud or lying. In BC3K the on-line game, the only person I
>>know of (either supportters or detractors) that does NOT try to tell
>>the truth is Derek Smart.
>
>
>Gee, Bill, what a surprise you take that position.
>
>Dan
Dan, I'm just one of the on-line game players. I don't know anyone
that posts in the online game except through the on-line game and a
few email's exchanged regarding the on-line game. I never even got
suckered into buying BC3K so I don't even have that axe to grind.
Yet a probable employee of Derek says "Gee, Bill, what a surprise you
take that position." If anybody here has ulterior motives, it would
be you, Dan.
P.S. Does Derek give you anything besides bullshit promises?
Bill Huffman
Dan Brooks
BaZ wrote in message ...
>Quote Source And Information
>----------------------------
>Newsgroup :alt.games.bc3000ad
>Date :Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:08:13 -0600
>Article ID :<34c67...@news.primary.net>
>Poster :Dan Brooks
>Address :comput...@email.msn.com
>
>Dan Brooks said...
>>C'mon, Bill. It proves a PhD does not have to be available in DAI and
that
>>because you can't find it on a database it is not the proof you claim of a
>>PhD fraud. Plain and simple. Derek says he's not listed. How does that
>>prove anything? An author can decline listing according to UMI.
>>
>
>Look, who gives a flying fuck if it is or it is not.
I give. Who?
The bottom line is,
>Derek has mishandled the entire issue. He can argue all he wants to the
>contrary but there are plenty of people who think so no matter what he
>says.
So?
It is highly unlikely that you can find any dissertations from UK
>tech schools on CS circa 1983 in DAI anyway.
Explain that to Bill. I give up on him anyway.
>I lived in the UK for about 2 years and have plenty of contacts over
>there. I visit once a year or so. I am getting ready to start calling all
>UK tech schools one by one to find out where he went to school.
That is an example of why I think you're slightly off center, Baz. If it
floats your boat, great, but don't be surprised if you are described as
obsessed or worse.
There are
>not that many of them that offer a PhD in computer science. It is
>probable that his school has gone out of 'business'. In the UK, there are
>often little trade schools that spring up and then dissapear. One of
>them may have offered a program like the one he claims. This may be one
>of the reasons he doesn't divulge the info.
It is "probable?" LOL. I'll buy "possible."
Dan
Dan Brooks
Stuart Park wrote in message <6a9t7q$1...@banana.psd.com.au>...
>> >I reckon you should stop wasting your life on this issue. Noone really
>> >gives a damn when you get down to it. If a person says he has got or
done
>> >something, then that person is entitled to be believed. To carry out a
>> >vendetta against someone is a little petty, and can destroy someones
life,
>> >just because you dont believe what they said.
>
>
>Dan Brooks (comput...@email.msn.com) wrote:
>> Sorry, TC, I tried saying the same kind of thing a long time ago. It's
>> falling on deaf ears. They are having way too much fun.
>
>Those words at the top seem very relevant to you, Dan..
>You do seem to be carrying out a vendetta against Bill,
>because you don't believe what he said.
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. I took exception to his claim of some absolute
"facts." I proved one of those facts as specifically wrong. The other
"facts" were simply opinions, and I took issue with them, as he with mine.
Bill continued to offer that "fact" by slightly rewording his statement.
That did not alter the utter falsehood of his statement.
If you want to define my posts that call Bill on his lie [yes, it is a lie
now, because he is well aware of the actual truth] as a "vendetta" that is
your perrogative. I have given up on Bill, certainly for now, as he seems
bound and determined to continue misstating the fact, and while I thought
exposing the fact to him would end this, it obviously hasn't.
You do seem to
>be wasting your life on this issue.
>(how many messages have you written in this newsgroup
>in the last week?)
Compared to . . . BP, Baz, Ribo, etc? You've asked them the same thing?
Many of my recent posts were prompted by the truth of the DAI situation, and
then banging my head against Bill's brick wall. And BP, he has been such an
inviting, inane target. I shake my head every time I read one of his non
sequitors. How can any one be so . . .
But you are right. While at points entertaining, it has become more of a
waste. Thank you for your insight.
Dan
Stuart Park
Bill Huffman (huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM) wrote:
> Dan, I'm just one of the on-line game players. I don't know anyone
> that posts in the online game except through the on-line game and a
> few email's exchanged regarding the on-line game. I never even got
> suckered into buying BC3K so I don't even have that axe to grind.
> Yet a probable employee of Derek says "Gee, Bill, what a surprise you
> take that position." If anybody here has ulterior motives, it would
> be you, Dan.
> P.S. Does Derek give you anything besides bullshit promises?
In a message to me, Dan implied that he was one of Derek's followers.
I'm not sure if he is an employee, but he does seem to have a
desire to protect Derek.
Bill Huffman
In article <MPG.f3084625...@news.aros.net>,
BaZ <baz...@aros.net> wrote:
>Quote Source And Information
>----------------------------
>Newsgroup :alt.games.bc3000ad
>Article ID :<6a5i63$o...@si611.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
>Poster :Bill Huffman
>Address :huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM
>
>Bill Huffman said...
>>my "proof" of Derek's PhD fraud. I would like to also encourage anyone
>>that believes there may be other inaccuracies to let me know so that
>>it can be remedied.
>
>You refer to him as Derek instead of The Lying Egotistical Mouth
>Peeing Dipshit.
Actually, a few months back I apologized to all Dereks of the world.
Because the name Derek has become synonymous with the above description,
at leaset within this ng. It is something similiar to being named
Dick. That was an okay name at one point but, now carries around
some unwanted baggage.
Dan Brooks
Stuart Park wrote in message <6ae5ml$h...@banana.psd.com.au>...
>Bill Huffman (huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM) wrote:
>> Dan, I'm just one of the on-line game players. I don't know anyone
>> that posts in the online game except through the on-line game and a
>> few email's exchanged regarding the on-line game. I never even got
>> suckered into buying BC3K so I don't even have that axe to grind.
>
>> Yet a probable employee of Derek says "Gee, Bill, what a surprise you
>> take that position." If anybody here has ulterior motives, it would
>> be you, Dan.
>
>> P.S. Does Derek give you anything besides bullshit promises?
>
>In a message to me, Dan implied that he was one of Derek's followers.
How so?
>I'm not sure if he is an employee, but he does seem to have a
>desire to protect Derek.
Nope. You still don't get it.
Dan
bill.h...@sandiegoca.ncr.com
In article <6ae5ml$h...@banana.psd.com.au>,
stu...@banana.psd.com.au (Stuart Park) wrote:
>
> Bill Huffman (huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM) wrote:
> > Dan, I'm just one of the on-line game players. I don't know anyone
> > that posts in the online game except through the on-line game and a
> > few email's exchanged regarding the on-line game. I never even got
> > suckered into buying BC3K so I don't even have that axe to grind.
>
> > Yet a probable employee of Derek says "Gee, Bill, what a surprise you
> > take that position." If anybody here has ulterior motives, it would
> > be you, Dan.
>
> > P.S. Does Derek give you anything besides bullshit promises?
>
> In a message to me, Dan implied that he was one of Derek's followers.
> desire to protect Derek.
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Michael Bay
Dan Brooks wrote:
> >I'm not sure if he is an employee, but he does seem to have a
> >desire to protect Derek.
>
> Dan
No one gets it, Dan, because you're an idiot who doesn't have a point.
You've filled the newsgroup with your rants, but you haven't made one
valid point. And now Bill's caught you lying. Let's see... rants and
lies. Sounds like Derek's M.O.
Alan Simpson
Bill Huffman wrote:
> In article <6a5c6q$fru$1...@news.on>, Willy <wan...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
> >Derek Smart wrote in message <6a3i4k$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
After having put up with this thread and it's relatives for what seems like
forever, its time to either move on or change something. Like maybe a new group
called alt.games.bc3000ad.dsmart.for and alt.games.bc300ad.dsmart.against. This
would keep those like myself with no interest whatsoever from having to put up
with the eternal DS posts. After all this group is supposed to be about gaming,
not flaming, and it is getting very, very, tiresome.
Stuart Park
Dan Brooks (comput...@email.msn.com) wrote:
> Stuart Park wrote in message <6ae5ml$h...@banana.psd.com.au>...
> >
> >In a message to me, Dan implied that he was one of Derek's followers.
> How so?
Here is my reply to the message (that you never responded to):
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: stu...@banana.psd.com.au (Stuart Park)
Newsgroups: alt.games.bc3000ad,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Subject: Re: Check out Allgames.Com comments about the BC3000 fiasco
Followup-To: alt.games.bc3000ad,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Date: 23 Jan 1998 10:09:20 GMT
Organization: Banana Plantations
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <6a9q8g$1...@banana.psd.com.au>
Dan Brooks (comput...@email.msn.com) wrote:
> >Is this what happens whenever someone _dares_ to review BC3K negatively?
> >i.e. Derek and his group of followers spam the person's mailbox
> >with abusive rants..
> >
> >Oh very clever.. and _really_ mature.
> Excuse me?
> 1] Why are you assuming "abusive rants?" My mail to Scot was far from
> abusive. Ask him. Have you seen any of the mail?
So does this mean you are one of Derek's followers?
I figured as much..
--
"If only he used his talent for niceness, instead of evil"
- Get Smart
Stuart Park
E-Mail: stuart @ banana.psd.com.au Melbourne, Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note that I was only talking about Derek and his followers and
Dan then assumed that was criticism of him..)