My email from Derek Smart (9/3/99)
Ed Bain
Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
In it, I promised to keep it private, between he and I.
I will try to explain, here, why I feel it absolutely
necessary to break my word.
Derek continues to call me: 'dishonest', 'unloyal',
'detractor' etc. etc. on a -worldwide forum-, and continues
to name-drop Dr Bear's name and book into the defense of his 'Ph.D.'.
He calls those that question him all sorts of ugly names and has
included death wishes in his arsenal of attacks.
Maybe Derek doesn't mind being called 'dishonest' on a worldwide
forum, archived forever in dejanews, but I do, and I told him so.
I am going to break an unwritten 'rule' in the internet 'book',
by posting this here on Usenet, because I am weary of his lies,
and being used as a whipping boy for -his- problems.
His credibility or lack thereof is -his- to own.
It is not mine.
I warned him, in posts today, to stop with the lies and insults
toward me, on this worldwide forum, or I would post this, and
he refused, preferring instead to continue to question my
character, in a very public way, on this newsgroup.
It should be noted that, until today, I have said NOTHING
about the content of this email to anyone, except my
wife. I have had no communications with any 'detractors',
'supporters', or anyone else, about this, and I have said
nothing on Usenet about the details of the email.
For those that are interested in the genesis of this, I
suggest you read the posts from Derek and myself over
the last few days. I was going to post the direct dejanews
links here, but I suggest that the readers simply search
on our names at www.dejanews.com for the period of the last
week. Please read them in the context of the threads involved.
Then, ask yourself what you would have done.
In this included email from Derek, there are some details that
have little to do with the question at hand, and I considered
snipping them, but decided that I wouldn't, in order to present
the mail unedited, and hopefully unquestioned. The reader
can draw their own conclusions as to 'honesty', etc...
The 'Derek Smart, Ph.D. flamewar' has gone on long enough,
and the person that has protracted it, is Derek Smart, the
individual, not those that questioned his 'Ph.D'.
I admire Derek Smart, the game developer, but his online
persona, and his wild claims and insults toward me, and
others, have now reached the point that I can't play his
"plausible deniability" game anymore without damage
to my own karma.
I will not allow him to continue to hide behind an unwritten
prohibition against posting private email, while simultaneously
trashing my character, and the character of others in a
worldwide forum.
That's it.
As I said in this newsgroup earlier, Derek has my ABSOLUTE
permission to post any or all of my email to him.
No more "plausible denial", Derek.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Here is the email, with no further comment.
============ begin email ==============
Return-Path: <dsm...@pobox.com>
Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com ([207.69.200.82])
by mx9.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id rsvt67.evn.37kbi17
for <rre...@mindspring.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:18:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from server1 (user-38ld832.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.160.98])
by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26061
for <rre...@mindspring.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
X-Sender: derek...@mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:18:05 -0400
To: rre...@mindspring.com (Ed Bain)
From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: ...about Huffman
In-Reply-To: <37d0e750...@mail.mindspring.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
<4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Hey Derek!
>
>Since I don't know the true status of your degree, etc. it
>would be hard to advise you. Also, I, like you, would be
>pretty PO'd at the abuse over the years. As I said, though,
>I can understand why some people would be upset with someone
>with the title Ph.D. with no proof, etc..
>
>But, in a perfect world, here are some of the -main- things
>I would try to do.
>
>1) First and foremost, I would do -nothing- without an agreement
>from Huffman to remove/destroy the site, and for him to take a hike.
This is what my attorney suggested awhile back. He is away for
a week (extended labor day weekend) and I will be speaking with him
when he gets back.
>Maybe this could be done, via a contract with Huffman, or some
>other way. Your lawyer might be able to advise as to the method
>that would be as iron-clad as possible. With him out of the way,
>you should have an easier time on the newsgroup. Notice I said
>destroy the site. Somehow, some assurance should be forthcoming
>from Bill that the site will not simply be sent to another person
>and mirrored. Ask your attorney how such an assurance could be
>worded in your agreement with Huffman.
Noted
>2) Secondly, I am at a bit of a disadvantage since I have no
>knowledge of what type of degree you have, other than the description
>you gave (DL/non-accredited). Heck, if I had your thesis / degree
>in front of me, I wouldn't know.. :)
Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
It didn't matter to me at the time and little did I realize that it
would come back to haunt me. They (unfortunately, I'd rather not give
you the name at this point if you don't mind) operate in much the same
way that KWU operates here in the US which is why I had contacted KWU,
back in '96, hoping that they were accredited. Didn't it strike you as
odd that I was able to quote from the KWU brochure the other day on the
group? Thats cause I have it my hand. A few months ago, they sent me
another one and I even got to the point where they assigned an
enrolment person to me (Brenda Cochran, 800-635-2900) but I never went
ahead because I wasn't sure whether I was going to be in the same boat
and hence my pointing out the 'licensed' vs the 'accredited' issue on
the group. They even offered to give me credits but for $6000, I wanted
more which is why I started investigating the Universities in my
neighborhood and I have found one willing to give me credits for my
work and they have *assured* me that I get the degree within 18 months.
And they are accredited.
>Now, where I'm headed with this is I sense that you may be 'attached'
>to your own -pride- that prevents you, at this point, from allowing
>Bill H. to dictate what you do. We ALL have that problem, I know I do.
Yes, indeed and you are right. :(
>Sooo...
>
>I recommend that you get an agreement with Huffman, that in exchange
>for the -total and complete truth- about your degree, regardless of
>it accreditation, etc., that he will destroy his site and ooze back
>into the woodwork. So far, he hasn't stated he would do something
>like that. He feels that he shoud have proof of accreditation, etc.
>before yanking his site. At this juncture, faced with lawsuit, etc.,
>maybe he would go for it. You would also have to forego any legal
>action against Huffman.
I will consider this and I have already contacted Dr Bear about it.
And, ready for this, he thinks that I have *no* business even
responding to that nonsense and if what I make of my degree,
is my business as long as I have not broken any laws. Go figure.
>I am talking -total- honesty here. If you sent $9.99 to xyz
>university and received a piece of paper with Ph.D. stamped on it,
>so be it.
That was not the case
>If you were duped into believing whatever school is
>involved was accredited, so be it.
That was not the case. I wasn't duped, accreditation just didn't
matter to me at the time, I just wanted to do the work without having
my studies affect my work and travels. I did it, on a whim because
the offer was there.
>If you did a real degree program, of some kind, from a less than stellar
school, so be it.
Unfortunately, I didn't and this is why I've kept it secret all along.
How the hell was I to know that Huffman would be obssessed about it and
become a rabid dog.
>It doesn't matter after the agreement is done with Huffman. You would
HONESTLY
>tell the story and produce the sheepskin.
Noted
>At that point, I think you should adjust your title to whatever
>you feel appropriate. Derek Smart Ph.D. 1996 - American University,
>Distance Learning program, whatever. Better yet, stop using the
>title publicly.
*sigh*
>Let your talent speak for you, not your title.
Indeed
>Derek, it's almost a spiritual issue. Think about the emotional
>baggage that would be removed. At this point, in what I perceive
>to be the situation, I believe I would be ready for some relief
>from the burden.
Yes, and that is what I have been striving to achieve. My attorneys
have always advised me that if I go to court, that based on what Huffman
has done over the years, that I *can* get him for libel because I did,
at the time, studied for and acquired a degree, albeit, a non-accredited
one via a DL institute, but nevertheless, a Ph.D. This is the only
reason that I have been pursuing it. So far, I have spent a ton of money
for experts in the field of libel and Internet crimes, that my attorneys
have consulted. This is what has slowed the process down. My attorney in
NY is my best friend and he won't lead me astray because he has no stakes
in this. This is not some issue of attorneys telling the wrong thing, so
that I spend money foolishly. He was the one who found the firm, he trusted,
in CA, to handle the matter. They were skeptical at first but as they
delved into the matter, they were convinced that Huffman can't be normal
and that even producing the sheepskin, won't do anything. He would just
change the site again, keep up and then continue to attack me for something
else, say, 'accademic fraud' etc. Thats the problem. Huffman, as others will
tell you, *cannot* be trusted and therefore only a decisive court decision
will get him off me. Further, the fact this whole thing started on NCR's
servers, brings them into the suit and I was advised that if I was awarded
damages, that NCR would also be held liable. Dan and others, *know* whats
going on back here and I can't say anything in open forum etc, so people
think I'm just bluffing. I'm not. These things just take time.
>Also, I am not recommending that you run out this afternoon and
>'come clean'. Far from it. I am suggesting that you discuss it
>with your attorney. Spend some quiet time thinking about it,
>and then start to work on the deal with Huffman. A joint WIN-WIN
>statement from both of you would be a superb way to make the
>announcement. Huffman can crow a little about fraudulent diploma
>mills, you can also crow about finally seeing the light and your
>plan to move on and let your talent speak for you, not your
>title.
Noted. But remember, you are putting too much trust in Huffman.
Ed, I can be trusted, apart from my own shortcomings, I am and have
always been, a God fearing person. When I even told the world that
my degree was from a DL institute, I had no problems with that,
even though it was very embarassing for me. I was able to suck that
in and it didn't change my life in *any* shape or form.
>While the short-term effect might be one of lots of spewing from
>the particularly nasty ones in the newsgroup, your support would
>gain rapidly after the initial shock wore off, IMO.
I agree and thats why my posts have been objected about this in the
past few days.
>You are going to have to -resist- at all costs, jabbing back
>at the idiots during this transitional phase, or in the future.
>
>You can't do it, Derek.
I agree
>As far as any gaming press stuff that would arise, I think if you
>handle it properly and -honestly-, they too would sense your sincerity,
>and would get past it pretty quickly.
>
>The mandatory keys to this plan are:
>
> 1) Rock-solid deal with Huffman.
> 2) Absolute, unequivocal honesty on your part.
> 3) Joint WIN-WIN statement from Huffman and you.
> 4) Cooling it, during the transitional phase.
> 5) Honesty and lack of jabbing back on your part, in the future.
> 6) Get your game finished and get rich.. :)
hehe, nice check list <g>
>It is changing your -attachment- to pride I am talking about here.
>I, personally, would have trouble doing it, but after the years
>of the flamewar, yeah I think I could decide to be happy, move on
>and get rich.
I agree 100%
>I bet you didn't expect preaching, huh?
nah, it's ok. I've learned a lot. The truth is, back when this was
all going on, I was a nobody Ed, I had a failed game, there were and
there are still those who are jealous of me. Even for the very fact
that I have the ability to continue to do high-profile deals and
progress in the face of failure ('96 that is) and it was just too much
for me to add this who Ph.D. issue to it. Now, my game has spoken for
my talent, I continue to make progress and in a way, I have succeeded
now where I seemingly failed in '96. The outcome of this, is irrelevant
to me and if my thesis didn't contain technology that I use in my game,
and which would cause me to lose the edge on my games (and probably make
my current and future publishers nervous) I would just put the damn thing
on my site and be done with it. In fact, this is why I agreed to have an
independent person, with no stakes and/or ties to the industry, look at
it. Further thats where the confidence that, even though I did it for a
degree mill, they would see and acknowledge that it was quality Ph.D.
material. Of course, the other side of the spectrum is who does the thesis
and technology belong to? I had a lengthy fight with the granting body,
and won. If I hadn't then I would have had to put that work in the public
domain or worse, pay them royalties on work, i.e, my game, that it was used
in. It is a very, very complex matter and thats why I have remained silent
and just taking all the potshots. It goes beyond Huffman, beyond pride etc.
My very future depends on the integrity and security of that work.
>I''l talk to you later. I hope this helps in some way.
It does help and I have learned a lot. We'll see how it goes. You would be
best served contacting Huffman and perhaps you can find a way for him to
save face in all this, because I'm not particularly interested in giving
him a free ticket; not after all these years. I simply cannot do that because
I would be the laughing stock from now until eternity. Look what I've endured
for almost three years Ed. Think about that for a minute.
>As always, any email will be kept private.
I know and thats why I trust you.
Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"It's not everyone telling me it can't be done that bothers me.
It's them interrupting me while I'm doing it!"
============ end email ============
--
* rrevved at mindspring dot com
* unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
* http://www.cabal.net
Paul Thronson
> >As always, any email will be kept private.
>
>I know and thats why I trust you.
>
>Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Like sands through the hourglass .... so are the posts in this newsgroup.
[removing alt.education.distance]
[adding very.very.stupid]
Paul
A.J. Roberts
DAKTARI!
Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote in message
news:37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com
> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
!!!!!!!!!!
Boom!
!!!!!!!!!!
And I thought that Camille Klein was mean as a bag full of wet cats!
--
DAKTARI!
histo...@hotmail.com
PJL
> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
Cue music...
Should old acquaintance's be forgot
and never brought to mind...
Goodnight everybody, thanks for playing
in the longest flamewar of the millennium!
God Bless! Drive safe!
--
////////////////////
þ@† £µñЮ¡gãñ
Remove $ to email
////////////////////
mark edward hardwidge
> No more "plausible denial", Derek.
The problem with posting email is that it's not 'proof' of
anything. There is no verification possible of a bunch of ASCII text.
I don't have any particular opinions about the whole PhD
matter, but I think you should be aware that anyone who doesn't
believe you isn't going to believe your attributions regarding what
someone else said. Anyone who already believes you will...but there
isn't much point in convincing them!
--
Mark E. Hardwidge
hard...@uiuc.edu
Ed Bain
in msg <7rbopl$e6r$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
mark edward hardwidge <hard...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> said :
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote:
>> No more "plausible denial", Derek.
>
> The problem with posting email is that it's not 'proof' of
>anything. There is no verification possible of a bunch of ASCII text.
> I don't have any particular opinions about the whole PhD
>matter, but I think you should be aware that anyone who doesn't
>believe you isn't going to believe your attributions regarding what
>someone else said. Anyone who already believes you will...but there
>isn't much point in convincing them!
Very good point, Mark, but since Derek Smart is still on this
newsgroup, he is free to comment as to the email's validity
and has also been invited, by me, to post any email I sent him.
That's as fair an arrangement as I could come up with.
Derek Smart
<hard...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote:
>> No more "plausible denial", Derek.
>
> The problem with posting email is that it's not 'proof' of
>anything. There is no verification possible of a bunch of ASCII text.
> I don't have any particular opinions about the whole PhD
>matter, but I think you should be aware that anyone who doesn't
>believe you isn't going to believe your attributions regarding what
>someone else said. Anyone who already believes you will...but there
>isn't much point in convincing them!
Frankly, I don't know what the fuss is about. Like I said in email, I
have nothing to hide. Dr Bear (or was it one of the other folks from
a.e.d ?) made it quite clear that any institution offering a degree
that is not accredited, is a degree mill. They have also indicated, as
I mentioned in my mail, that I don't *have* to answer *any* questions
from anyone, nor do I need to engage in this crap. It was in plain
sight and that is one of the reasons, as I stated, that I just decided
to declare that it was not accredited. I used Dr Bear's authoritative
guideline. End of story. As I indicated in the mail, unlike sending
money for a degree in return, I *did* the work. Now, this can be
regarded as yet another 'revelation'. Its not, nor does it even shed
any light to anything.
So much for trusting someone with confidential email. *sigh*. I guess
now we can all question the credibility of the people who contact us
via email, calling themselves lurkers, concerned few, just interested
etc. If you all remember my post about Allan of this morning, *thats*
what I'm talking about. I guess you can now all understand why this
recent turn of events with Ed, has been, well, disturbing.
So, you folks can, once again, continue to have your fun at my
expense. It doesn't change a *thing*.
The only breather has been this post, form another game developer,
which I replied to earlier and which, after my own thoughts, edited my
sig.
================
Derek,
his point is that when people, such as myself, who spent 4 1/2 years
working on PhD at an accredited university, watch you just append a
clearly unearned title at the end of your name, it makes them angry
and it makes you look foolish.
For what it's worth, I think you are a talented game developer and you
shouldn't need to claim a degree you haven not earned (and don't
possess) in order to gain respect. You clearly have what it takes to
earn a PhD, (intelligence, perserverence, motivation...) however, you
are simply unwilling to incur 4 years of the opportunity cost of
working toward said degree.
I don't blame you in that regard, sometimes I look at how much money I
lost in potential salary during those 4 years and kick myself. But
one thing is for certain, only those who have actually been through an
accredited program deserve to be called Dr.
Now do the right thing and remove that PhD from your sig until you
have one from an accredited university.
Douglas Hendrix
Stardock Systems
PhD '96
Astrophysics/Plasma Physics
University of California, Irvine
======================
MY REPLY:
What a refreshing break. I accept and respect your opinion Douglas and
will continue to ponder my next move going forward. That said..
However, though it is a non-accredited degree, let me ask you this,
how does it make the work that I put it into it, less that what you
put into yours from a class room. This is the concept that I simply
*cannot* wrap my brain around. After all, that is what a DL institute
is for and several have non-accredited programs which *are* accepted
the world over and even by most top level employers. Dr Bear's book,
the most complete and excellent resource, proves that much.
Further, with the advent of the digital age and notwithstanding the
stigma associated with fraudulent operations handing out diplomas for
a fee, what is the recourse? Are we to embrace the Internet and the
ease it brings into most of our online activities which discarding the
very notion of promotion further education? Are we then to assume that
the future of education will be remain archaic simply because one has
to be in a physical classroom in order to be considered having worked.
Further along, I know how the CS degree program works, on and off
campus. It it not Biology or Chemistry, which require a certain amount
of lab work that we are talking about here. We are talking about a
field that, if you look at the sylabus from most schools, it will be
obvious that need not step a foot into a class room. Also, it is about
discipline. Sure, studying from home breeds the need to cheat but
being in the classroom does not alleviate that either. If there was an
exam that I had to take, similar to GSAT or something, that would
acknowledge my hard work, I would take it in a heart beat and would
have nary a doubt in my mind that I would pass with flying colors.
For the same reason I did the degree through DL, I could not afford
the work downtime because I had a good career, safe life and I just
did not want to disrupt that. I didn't do it in order to get a job (I
haven't worked for anyone in almost 10 years and until '95, I was
still a consultant to computer corps), I did it because, simply, I
felt like it. It was about prestige and ego I guess. It wasn't about
sibling rivalry either. Also, the institute allowed me privacy, ease
of studies and I didn't have to make my technology public. My whole
work that I currently do, as you know, centers around *very* advanced
AI technology I created from the ground up and I am extremely
protective of it because it gives me the edge. In fact, the other day
I was on the phone with the counselor of a local college that offers
Ph.D degrees in CS (you probably read the other threads in which some
people suggested various colleges and I have been looking into one
with an accredited program) and I asked the same thing. She told me
*point blank* that I would be better off *not* doing the degree
because I'd have to list my dissertation unless is was a matter of
national security or some crap to that effect. So, if I do enrol, I'd
have to do a dissertation on something *completely* different and
which I wouldn't care if it was listed or not. It would be like
starting from scratch. Apart from that, I don't think doing a thesis
on the hazards of game development, is going to fly. Do you? :)
I am open to suggestions in this regard because I have *full*
intentions of enrolling in an accredited program for my own personal
advancement and nothing else.
Further along, how about those institutions that give our honorary
degrees to folks who *never* even either went to school there or
stepped foot in a degree program. What about them? At least I did the
work, accredited or not. In fact, I plan on contacting Princeton
University (cause I have a contact there) to see if I could get into a
program or some sort of recognition if they found my technology in my
dissertation, worthy. Naturally, I don't particularly plan on upping
and moving to NJ (though I have a pad in NYC) even if they did let me
enrol, but, I'm sure I could get some good suggestions on how to
proceed, before I enrol in a local school here in Fort Lauderdale.
Believe me, I am not doing this to piss people off, it just seems that
way. Many years ago, how was I to know that this whole thing would
come to this? Talk about hindsight. This is why I maintain that once
it got out of hand, there was no turning back and yes, I regret saying
that it was accredited when it wasn't but I did that for a specific
reason, as I have already stated.
I am torn in what to do and not do, further, I have a lawsuit pending
because Huffman *refuses* to back the hell off me. Apart from that,
removing the Ph.D. from my sig is one thing, feeling good about it is
another. Besides, it would just be one more thing to attack me for and
the detractors would have a field day. Case in point: yesterday, I was
moving my Euroda mailbox around and forgot to update Agent for my sig
file. Before you know it, one of them, Daktari (man of many aliases),
was quick to stab at me for it. No doubt you saw the post in this same
thread? Now *thats* what I'm talking about. I also need justification
(as you aptly put it that anyone not of an accredited program, should
not be refered to as Dr.) for removing those initials because right
now, I just *don't* see anything other than people's isolated
opinions. Besides, people rarely call me Dr. and in fact, my employees
could care less and lets not even talk about the fan base.
This is not an issue that has to be polled. All around us there are
people in high places who end up in the same predicament. Saw
somethingon Wired earlier this week, saw something in the NYT awhile
back etc. But I *did* the work. In fact, I just saw something in the
Monday edition of The Herald (www.broward.com) in which a bunch of
students where suing a local college because they failed to tell said
students that their physical fitness program lost its degree program
accreditation! Imagine that.
I don't know what to do but perhaps with the proper debate and
dialogue, I will find a solution. It all boils down to public opinion
and I think the world knows how I feel about that. I plan on
contacting Dr Bear privately for advice and go from there. Eitherway,
I will do whats best for *me* and whats *right*; and *not* whats best
based on public opinion. I don't strive on public opinion and I can be
a jackass all day about it and it won't change people's opinion of me.
I will always, Ph.D. or not, be me, Derek Smart.
Thanks for your opinion. See what happens when people are reasonable?
Some, Ph.D. or not, just feel like they can attack someone and have a
teddy bear thrown back at them. Fuck 'um, Ph.D and all.
=====================
DOUGS REPLY:
One problem with this is that I gave up 4 years of a career to earn a
PhD. My salary in 1995 was 1/6 of what I make now. Because of this,
most PhDs feel like you gotta pay your dues similarly if you want to
be called Dr.
Not to mention that if it worked the way you are saying, then
everybody with 5 years of work experience in some industry should
automatically be awarded a PhD. My boss is a great example, he has a
MS Physics and 20 years of Aerospace industry experience, but he made
his choice not to pursue a PhD and instead get a job and so he is not
a Dr., but I, his subordinate, am.
Another problem with this is that I spent 2 of those years travelling
the world presenting my work in front of the worlds experts and
defending it against their criticisms. I published 4 papers in
Astrophysics Journals and defended my work formally against criticism
from referees. The result is something you just can't achieve via a
non-accredited school. The quality of a dissertation accepted by an
accredited school is something you can't match with DL.
> Further, with the advent of the digital age and notwithstanding the
> stigma associated with fraudulent operations handing out diplomas for
> a fee, what is the recourse? Are we to embrace the Internet and the
> ease it brings into most of our online activities which discarding the
> very notion of promotion further education? Are we then to assume that
> the future of education will be remain archaic simply because one has
> to be in a physical classroom in order to be considered having worked.
I have no qualms with remote research. Toward the end of my grad
studies, I worked mostly alone in my offfice or at home. In the
beginning, however, I really knew nothing about the subject matter of
my research and needed the pointers from my advisor to make sure I was
going in the right direction. This is most likely the reason for
residency requirements. It's the kind of thing that you have to have
been there to realize how much you grow as a scholar and a scientist
by going through an accredited PhD program and having an advisor who
is a world expert in a field.
> Further along, I know how the CS degree program works, on and off
> campus. It it not Biology or Chemistry, which require a certain amount
> of lab work that we are talking about here. We are talking about a
> field that, if you look at the sylabus from most schools, it will be
> obvious that need not step a foot into a class room. Also, it is about
> discipline. Sure, studying from home breeds the need to cheat but
> being in the classroom does not alleviate that either. If there was an
> exam that I had to take, similar to GSAT or something, that would
> acknowledge my hard work, I would take it in a heart beat and would
> have nary a doubt in my mind that I would pass with flying colors.
I agree here. Though, for example, my research was purely
theoretical, so I had no real requirements to be on campus other than
what I mentioned above. In the field of neural networks, there is
also a lot of heady theory. I would imagine that studying under the
tutelage of an academic expert would really be necessary to fully
understand the current state of ther art and to be able to formulate
ground breaking research. BTW, there is a professor at UC
Irvine in the Physics Dept. doing research in neural nets.
> For the same reason I did the degree through DL, I could not afford
> the work downtime because I had a good career, safe life and I just
> did not want to disrupt that. I didn't do it in order to get a job (I
> haven't worked for anyone in almost 10 years and until '95, I was
> still a consultant to computer corps), I did it because, simply, I
> felt like it. It was about prestige and ego I guess. It wasn't about
> sibling rivalry either. Also, the institute allowed me privacy, ease
> of studies and I didn't have to make my technology public. My whole
> work that I currently do, as you know, centers around *very* advanced
> AI technology I created from the ground up and I am extremely
> protective of it because it gives me the edge. In fact, the other day
> I was on the phone with the counselor of a local college that offers
> Ph.D degrees in CS (you probably read the other threads in which some
> people suggested various colleges and I have been looking into one
> with an accredited program) and I asked the same thing. She told me
> *point blank* that I would be better off *not* doing the degree
> because I'd have to list my dissertation unless is was a matter of
> national security or some crap to that effect. So, if I do enrol, I'd
> have to do a dissertation on something *completely* different and
> which I wouldn't care if it was listed or not. It would be like
> starting from scratch. Apart from that, I don't think doing a thesis
> on the hazards of game development, is going to fly. Do you? :)
> I am open to suggestions in this regard because I have *full*
> intentions of enrolling in an accredited program for my own personal
> advancement and nothing else.
I feel your pain here. I know plenty of people who could have
completed PhDs. Some started and had to quit to get a job to support
family. Some never started because they had to feed hungry mouths.
That's a choice you have to make. My recommendation to you is if you
have enough money, go ahead and enroll in a an accredited program and
split your time between game develpment and a PhD.
I started my game, Stellar Frontier, just before I started writing my
dissertation. I was able to do both quite easily. Stellar Frontier
was my break from working on research and research was my break from
working on Stellar Frontier. I also know how it is to work on a game
for many years. (4 and counting). At times it is like having a 100lb
necklace.
> Further along, how about those institutions that give our honorary
> degrees to folks who *never* even either went to school there or
> stepped foot in a degree program. What about them? At least I did the
> work, accredited or not. In fact, I plan on contacting Princeton
> University (cause I have a contact there) to see if I could get into a
> program or some sort of recognition if they found my technology in my
> dissertation, worthy. Naturally, I don't particularly plan on upping
> and moving to NJ (though I have a pad in NYC) even if they did let me
> enrol, but, I'm sure I could get some good suggestions on how to
> proceed, before I enrol in a local school here in Fort Lauderdale.
I always wondered about those honorary degrees. I know Bill Cosby
has one, though I'm sure he doesn't call himself a Dr.
> Believe me, I am not doing this to piss people off, it just seems that
> way. Many years ago, how was I to know that this whole thing would
> come to this? Talk about hindsight. This is why I maintain that once
> it got out of hand, there was no turning back and yes, I regret saying
> that it was accredited when it wasn't but I did that for a specific
> reason, as I have already stated.
>
> I am torn in what to do and not do, further, I have a lawsuit pending
> because Huffman *refuses* to back the hell off me. Apart from that,
> removing the Ph.D. from my sig is one thing, feeling good about it is
> another. Besides, it would just be one more thing to attack me for and
> the detractors would have a field day. Case in point: yesterday, I was
> moving my Euroda mailbox around and forgot to update Agent for my sig
> file. Before you know it, one of them, Daktari (man of many aliases),
> was quick to stab at me for it. No doubt you saw the post in this same
> thread? Now *thats* what I'm talking about. I also need justification
> (as you aptly put it that anyone not of an accredited program, should
> not be refered to as Dr.) for removing those initials because right
> now, I just *don't* see anything other than people's isolated
> opinions. Besides, people rarely call me Dr. and in fact, my employees
> could care less and lets not even talk about the fan base.
Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Seems like you're damned if
you do and damned if you don't.
> This is not an issue that has to be polled. All around us there are
> people in high places who end up in the same predicament. Saw
> somethingon Wired earlier this week, saw something in the NYT awhile
> back etc. But I *did* the work. In fact, I just saw something in the
> Monday edition of The Herald (www.broward.com) in which a bunch of
> students where suing a local college because they failed to tell said
> students that their physical fitness program lost its degree program
> accreditation! Imagine that.
>
> I don't know what to do but perhaps with the proper debate and
> dialogue, I will find a solution. It all boils down to public opinion
> and I think the world knows how I feel about that. I plan on
> contacting Dr Bear privately for advice and go from there. Eitherway,
> I will do whats best for *me* and whats *right*; and *not* whats best
> based on public opinion. I don't strive on public opinion and I can be
> a jackass all day about it and it won't change people's opinion of me.
> I will always, Ph.D. or not, be me, Derek Smart.
I agree. I think the best thing you could do would be to earn an
accredited PhD.
BTW,
I'll trade you a copy of Stellar Frontier for BC3000. Right now
during beta it's a free download at
======================
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find
himself in places no one has ever been. Someone lemme out!"
Derek Smart
>From: rre...@mindspring.com (Ed Bain)
>To: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
>Subject: Re: ...about Huffman
>Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:27:40 GMT
>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
>
>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:33:46 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>So, now what do I do? As a neutral person, your opinions and suggestions, are
>>appreciated.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Derek Smart, Ph.D.
>>Designer/Lead Developer
>>The Battlecruiser Series
>>www.bc3000ad.com
>>
>>"It's not everyone telling me it can't be done that bothers me.
>>It's them interrupting me while I'm doing it!"
>
>Hey Derek!
>
>Since I don't know the true status of your degree, etc. it
>would be hard to advise you. Also, I, like you, would be
>pretty PO'd at the abuse over the years. As I said, though,
>I can understand why some people would be upset with someone
>with the title Ph.D. with no proof, etc..
>
>But, in a perfect world, here are some of the -main- things
>I would try to do.
>
>1) First and foremost, I would do -nothing- without an agreement
>from Huffman to remove/destroy the site, and for him to take a hike.
>
>Maybe this could be done, via a contract with Huffman, or some
>other way. Your lawyer might be able to advise as to the method
>that would be as iron-clad as possible. With him out of the way,
>you should have an easier time on the newsgroup. Notice I said
>destroy the site. Somehow, some assurance should be forthcoming
>from Bill that the site will not simply be sent to another person
>and mirrored. Ask your attorney how such an assurance could be
>worded in your agreement with Huffman.
>
>2) Secondly, I am at a bit of a disadvantage since I have no
>knowledge of what type of degree you have, other than the description
>you gave (DL/non-accredited). Heck, if I had your thesis / degree
>in front of me, I wouldn't know.. :)
>
>I am going to tell you what I -think- I would do. No one can know
>what your personal situation is, but you. Also, what appeals to me,
>might not be workable for you.
>
>I have always tried to be a basically honest person. I was raised
>in the Methodist church but haven't attended in many years. As I
>grew older, I took an interest in Eastern philosophy. Don't panic,
>you're not talking to a Buddhist here, but someone who has taken
>some of their tenets and applied them to his own life.
>
>Several years ago, I went through a divorce. My soon-to-be ex-wife
>was rifling the house and packing up lots of possessions that were
>obviously mine. Personal things. My first reaction was to tell her
>to leave them alone, that they weren't hers. I was pretty upset.
>As the divorce process wore on, I remembered some of the teachings
>on 'attachment'. In a nutshell, it means that to be truly 'attached'
>to something is detrimental to your spiritual health. There are
>Buddhist millionaires, but they don't mind sharing and showing
>compassion where they can. It is not a vow of poverty, or anything
>like that. It is simply to not be swayed / controlled by -things-.
>
>I am so glad I did not become attached to those possessions, and
>now I know that I did everything in my power to allow her to
>be as attached as she needed to be, while not gathering that
>spiritual, and emotional baggage.
>
>Now, where I'm headed with this is I sense that you may be 'attached'
>to your own -pride- that prevents you, at this point, from allowing
>Bill H. to dictate what you do. We ALL have that problem, I know I do.
>
>Sooo...
>
>I recommend that you get an agreement with Huffman, that in exchange
>for the -total and complete truth- about your degree, regardless of
>it accreditation, etc., that he will destroy his site and ooze back
>into the woodwork. So far, he hasn't stated he would do something
>like that. He feels that he shoud have proof of accreditation, etc.
>before yanking his site. At this juncture, faced with lawsuit, etc.,
>maybe he would go for it. You would also have to forego any legal
>action against Huffman.
>
>I am talking -total- honesty here. If you sent $9.99 to xyz
>university and received a piece of paper with Ph.D. stamped on it,
>so be it. If you were duped into believing whatever school is
>involved was accredited, so be it. If you did a real degree program,
>of some kind, from a less than stellar school, so be it. It doesn't
>matter after the agreement is done with Huffman. You would HONESTLY
>tell the story and produce the sheepskin.
>
>At that point, I think you should adjust your title to whatever
>you feel appropriate. Derek Smart Ph.D. 1996 - American University,
>Distance Learning program, whatever. Better yet, stop using the
>title publicly.
>
>Let your talent speak for you, not your title.
>
>Derek, it's almost a spiritual issue. Think about the emotional
>baggage that would be removed. At this point, in what I perceive
>to be the situation, I believe I would be ready for some relief
>from the burden.
>
>Also, I am not recommending that you run out this afternoon and
>'come clean'. Far from it. I am suggesting that you discuss it
>with your attorney. Spend some quiet time thinking about it,
>and then start to work on the deal with Huffman. A joint WIN-WIN
>statement from both of you would be a superb way to make the
>announcement. Huffman can crow a little about fraudulent diploma
>mills, you can also crow about finally seeing the light and your
>plan to move on and let your talent speak for you, not your
>title.
>
>While the short-term effect might be one of lots of spewing from
>the particularly nasty ones in the newsgroup, your support would
>gain rapidly after the initial shock wore off, IMO.
>
>You are going to have to -resist- at all costs, jabbing back
>at the idiots during this transitional phase, or in the future.
>
>You can't do it, Derek.
>
>As far as any gaming press stuff that would arise, I think if you
>handle it properly and -honestly-, they too would sense your sincerity,
>and would get past it pretty quickly.
>
>The mandatory keys to this plan are:
>
> 1) Rock-solid deal with Huffman.
> 2) Absolute, unequivocal honesty on your part.
> 3) Joint WIN-WIN statement from Huffman and you.
> 4) Cooling it, during the transitional phase.
> 5) Honesty and lack of jabbing back on your part, in the future.
> 6) Get your game finished and get rich.. :)
>
>It is changing your -attachment- to pride I am talking about here.
>I, personally, would have trouble doing it, but after the years
>of the flamewar, yeah I think I could decide to be happy, move on
>and get rich.
>
>I bet you didn't expect preaching, huh?
>
>I''l talk to you later. I hope this helps in some way.
>
>As always, any email will be kept private.
>
>Keep in touch!!
>
>Ed
>
>--
>rre...@mindspring.com
>unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
>http://www.cabal.net
>http://www.sputum.com
==============
>From: rre...@mindspring.com (Ed Bain)
>To: dsm...@pobox.com
>Subject: Camille ..
>Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 21:12:03 GMT
>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
>
>Hey Derek..
>
>Just so you know, the person in the ng who changed your post
>is a well known (famous) flamer who normally hangs out over
>on rec.games.mecha. Camille Klein. She is pretty vicious and
>if I were you, I wouldn't rise to the bait. She became a pal
>of Spookie2 during a Ph.D. fraud exposure that took place
>in one of the mecha groups. Check out her posts in Deja News.
>
>I would hang back from this, if I were you. She is very, very
>intelligent and just as tenacious and obnoxious. She claims to
>be a Subgenius, like me, but is pretty far over the top...
>
>Yer warned, SC... :)
>
>Ed
>
>--
>rre...@mindspring.com
>unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
>http://www.cabal.net
>http://www.sputum.com
===================
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Derek Smart
wrote:
>Well, that's it. Game over. Everyone can go home now.
Wishful thinking. There's nothing new there.
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Derek Smart
<thro...@nospam.spectrumbanc.com> wrote:
>
>> >As always, any email will be kept private.
>>
>>I know and thats why I trust you.
>>
>>Derek Smart, Ph.D.
>
>
>Like sands through the hourglass .... so are the posts in this newsgroup.
>
>[removing alt.education.distance]
>
>[adding very.very.stupid]
I trusted him. At least people now understand my lengthy post.
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Derek Smart
removed a.e.d from headers. Ed and his friends seem to think that
polluting the entire Internet with this drivel, is the norm.
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Derek Smart
>>
>> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
>> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>>
>
>Cue music...
>Should old acquaintance's be forgot
>and never brought to mind...
>
>Goodnight everybody, thanks for playing
>in the longest flamewar of the millennium!
>God Bless! Drive safe!
Pat, listen to yourself for a minute. Have you *really* thought about
what you are reading? Forget about the game for a minute, have you
thought about it? In case you missed it, here it is, again. Now you
see why I was pissed at Eds recent turn. But, don't tell me, I know,
you guys just want to play and the moral implications and facts are
virtually meaningless.
===============================
On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:30:15 GMT, em...@bottom.com (Ed Bain) wrote:
I have to run, so, I'll be quick and brief. I already said that I
wasn't going to play anymore and seeing you guys creating all those
threads in my honor, truly gives me a strange, warm, fuzzy feeling.
Since Ed, in so few words summarized the issue, I'll do the same. So,
without further ado, let this erupt into a 500+ post thread. I'll just
watch in amusement.
>Your point is well-taken, but the legal issues are pretty moot at this point.
Speculation. My next move, is *specifically* geared to surprise
no-one. It'll be a killer.
>Derek, in recent days, has admitted to having no accredited degree,
Yes, this is true. A few years ago, I said that my degree was
accredited, when it wasn't. I wasn't misled nor was I not aware that
it was not accredited. I just didn't want to admit it because I found
it less than flattering. Further, at the time, my product had just
bombed (thanks to Take Two), I was emotionally unstable and common
sense had taken a backseat to ego. Recently, because of the impending
lawsuit about to be filed against Bill Hufffman, his ISP and possibly
his employers, I had to clear up the issue, for the record, without
putting myself in jeopardy. My attorney(s) argued against it, but I
did what I wanted to do, *knowing* that I'd get flamed for it and that
Huffman and his cronies, who have dogged me for almost 3 years (for no
plausible reason other than pure hate) would claim victory. Their
opinions aren't even a fraction of the big picture, so, the means, for
me, justified the end. I said that I would deal with the consequences
and I am doing so. If I have any regret, it is because I didn't do it
sooner. Regardless, it wouldn't have made *any* difference because,
almost a *year* ago, I mentioned, for the first time, to the public (a
few 'acquaintances' here, already knew for over 3 years)
In my desire to keep the origins of the degree private (as I said, due
to the stigma associated with DL degrees), I was not forthcoming with
any info, let alone bothered with a correction. Had I corrected it,
then, I would not have been any better off than I am today for the
mere fact that, accredited or not, DL or not, it would not have made a
difference to those who seek to persecute me.
This, was my mistake. I'm human, therefore, I can.
To whit, these groups are constantly plagued by off-topic posts and
threads that seek nothing other than to cause me harm, discomfort and
embarrassment. They do neither (embarrassment, maybe, to a minor
degree) and I find it all too amusing at times.
Finally, since common sense is not an attribute normally found here
and since these forums are just a medium for folks, who probably
flunked HS, never even saw the bright side of a college campus, and
who are probably deemed socially inept or worse, psychologically
disturbed and riddled with low self-esteem personalities, I have to
ask: Has anyone *really* thought about all this? I mean, truly thought
about it? I know that all these DAs (Desktop Attorneys) *think* they
know what they're talking about and since talk is cheap when the
rhetoric bears no relevance to *real world* events, has anyone
*really* thought about it? I study chaos theories and I have done in
the past, and in my past readings on similar subjects, I have always
tried to draw the correlation between 'cause' and 'effect'. You'd be
surprised how much those two, seemingly simple words, come into play.
Here is how I look at it and I'm going to be as brazen as I can.
1. Someone questioned the quality of my game and started a thread akin
to "....he is a Ph.D. and wrote this piece of crap?' That sparked the
who debate. Sideline: I can think of several Ph.Ds (you know who they
are)( in the industry, who sat down and wrote a *dismal* game, that,
well, bombed.
2. Some queried the whole Ph.D. issue. I played it off because it was
a definite no-no and off limits. Huffman and I made a bet in which I
told him that he could not find it (he didn't. he lost) *knowing*
that he wouldn't. I had hoped that, it would end there. I was wrong.
3. Huffman then embarked on a crusade to 'bring me down'. So far, he
has not succeeded and he *never* will. Period. In his quest, he put up
a website, which has changed over the years to suit his stance. He has
lied, commited libel and knowing that what he writes here, he has
probably said to others, slander. He has harrassed me in more ways
than one. Over what? That my degree is not accredited or even worse,
according to him, non-existent?
He sends emails (highly unusual behavior) to mag editors in the hopes
of drawing attention to his cause. He failed and several the mails
found their way back to me of course. He posts on gaming forums (eg
over at Evil Avatar and others) and elsewhere. Each time I post here,
on-topic and about my *game*, he injects it with his usual diatribe.
He does it to newbies, who, unknowingly, come here to get info about
the game. He does it, regardless of where on the Net I post.
Constantly. All the time. Everytime. Thats harrassment and I have more
proof than anything.
4. In an attempt to get him to stop, we contacted NCR who are aware of
the issue and got him to stop posting from their servers. He gets a DN
account and posts from there and not from work. He continues the
farce.
5. He tries to get Dr Bear involved in his crusade and *lies* about
the good Doctor's involvement to the degree that it is pitiful to even
watch, in classic bILL style, as he dances around the issue as he has
so many in the past.
6. He continues on this crusade and whether I post or not, it is
irrelevant. If someone does something seemingly wrong (depending on
how you look at it) or which you don't approve of, there is no legal
recourse that gives anyone the right to harrass them over it, put up
websites, take out newspaper adds, pee in their law, scratch their
car, carryout drive-by egg throwing etc. You just can't do it. Period!
7. Even if I don't post, the discussion continues and seemingly takes
on a life of its own as people find more things to talk about (as
we'll see in a minute) that bear *no* relevance to this discussion
group.
8. In a move, designed to remove the 'grey area' in the whole Ph.D.
debate, I made it clear that the degree was not accredited. I had, for
*months* (and DN has all my archived posts), after indicating that it
was from a DL institute (which, in itself, should have been a clue.
duh!), made it clear that it was not accredited. Gone is the canned
"....accredited or not, from a cereal box or not, I have a degree and
one that I am proud off..." but somehow, some choose to regard this as
some sudden revelation. The kind you get when you finally score and
find that you can't get it up. Smoke. No fire.
And if I was man enough to admit that I was not forthcoming, I can be
man enough to take the aggravation that it brings with it because I
know that it is *nothing* new to my employees, fans, friends and
acquaintances. It bears *no* relevance to real life as I know it. The
president of the United States, lied to the *entire* world, let me
emphasize that so it sinks in, the *entire* world. Politicians do it
*everyday*, kids lie in school, we lie to our parents, spouses,
colleagues, friends, neighbors, the bill collectors etc. Who goes out
and creates web sites, takes out ads in the paper and *continues* to
harrass us over it? Who?? Who?? Who??? What is the plausible
motivation and/or the pay off if not to borne of a sick and deluded
mind?
So, I lied to the newsgroup to protect *my* right to privacy And? I
certainly didn't lie to anyone else, especially those who already
*knew* and didn't care. In fact, I just didn't want Huffman get ahold
of that particular piece of information because of what I knew he
would do with it. Heck, look what he has done for THREE YEARS when he
DIDN'T even know or had a *clue*. The whole premise just simply took
off from there and with the onslaught and barrage of harrassment and
abuse, there was no turning back because IT DID NOT MATTER, he would
still have continued, regardless. He has. I was right.
How many times has he not pledged to end this farce, and didn't?
At the end of this post, you will find some archived correspondence
that my attorney sent out in '98 and which led to several, including
fthx, baZ to get off this ride (assuming they didn't just create new
aliases). It remains consistent with my stance, today.
This is why, I have, over the months, maintained that this goes
*beyond* anything to do with the degree. It is just an excuse for bILL
to continue harrassing me and this is what I am suing him for.
Certainly, the Ph.D issue will come up in court because that is how it
all started, but I can assure you, it will probably last all of ten
minutes (according to my attorneys) in the case.
I cannot just up and sue someone and blow money away unless I was
*certain* that I would prevail. I gain *nothing* by bringing a
frivolous suit against a nobody like bILL Huffman. I don't have that
big an ego, otherwise I would *never* have even acknowledged, in open
forum and in the midst of a pack of wolves, that my degree was, in
fact, no accredited. I'm crazy, but not stupid. For this reason, the
groundwork takes time and since attorneys aren't paid with air, I have
to hedge my bets to the degree that the end will justify the means.
I told Huffman, on several occasion that if he leaves me alone, takes
his site down and cleans up his sig, that would be the *end* of this
matter. My attorneys, like my friends and supporters, and as it
evident here even though there is *nothing* more to this farce, do not
believe this would ever happen. Therefore, I have no choice but to
proceed, if only to ensure that *if* I do prevail (and thats for the
courts to decide) that there is a landmark hearing that will determine
the outcome of any action that I take against anyone who does the same
thing. Why? because, even if bILL withdraws now, there is nothing to
stop someone else, or even him under an alias, to start it up. sadly,
only a court order is going sort this one out. In fact, the first
thing we're doing now, is to get an injunction against his ISP and
make them aware that they are party to an impending lawsuit. I am
sure that they will advice Huffman of the wording of the notice and
there will be no grey areas in determining what I am doing. Then, I
will probably sue them *and* NCR for damages (because they originally
hosted his behavior on their servers), depending on the outcome,
because Huffman has no assets to speak off and is basically worthless
as a damage suit target. I'm not on a money making venture and in
fact, if any damages are awarded, it would probably be eaten up by the
attorney fees anyway. The rest, I'll probably give to charity. I make
money the *hard* way, I *earn* it.
Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit, it is the outcome of said suit
that bears any relevance to future discussions on said merits.
9. I have *always* maintain that I had a degree and that accredited or
not, from the back of a cereal box or from a cookie jar, that it was
something that I am proud of because I did it at a time when I was
involved in a lot of real life events and didn't even think I'd finish
it. Of course, then, only those, as I've said, who have been to my
offices, even know I have one, hanging on the wall where it has always
been. Unknown to most, I *knew* that it may seem worthless to some
employers, depending on what job I would be applying for. Further, it
is not unusual for people without *any* degree whatsoever to hold jobs
in higher position, with a *lot* more authority and money, than those
with degrees up the wazoo. I am highly talented and experienced in
what I do and therefore the thought of even worrying about what an
employer (non-existent) would think if they saw that I got a degree
from a DL institute, never even crossed my mind. To play it safe and
for my own peace of mind, I had started looking into DL institutes in
the US and came across KWU, which is how I was able to quote,
verbatim, what I had posted. So yes, I have been aware of the
implication of having an unaccredited degree *if* I wanted it to mean
anything to anyone else, but me. I didn't go forward for the reasons I
have already stated. For about $10K ($4K more than an unaccredited
degree from KWU), I can get a bona fide one from a local college and I
have been, for several months, comtemplating it. This in fact, was one
of the reasons I moved from Miami to Fort Lauderdale almost a year
ago.
10. Ask yourself, *why* is this going on? What does it do? What is the
justification if not to *continuously* harrass someone?
>and apparently was never a member of MENSA.
This is a *simple* one.
Again, there was a discussion in which I mentioned that I was once a
member of MENSA. Someone said prove it and I couldn't because that was
several years ago and back in the UK. So instead, I posted a scanned
copy of the letter that I got from MENSA when I had, several months
earlier, asked them about my membership records. If you check the date
of the post, you will see that it came long *after* I had even
contacted MENSA. So, it wasn't an issue of me contacting them *after*
I was asked to prove it. That being the case, why would I contact them
to re-instate my membership if I was never a member in the first
place...especially why would I contact the UK chapter? I even called
and they told me that I could, if I wanted, re-register here with the
US chapter. I have joined and left a lot of organisations, including
the CGDA, over the years; heck, I even have a piece of rock from Mars
(or an asteroid, can't remember).
I don't see what the big deal is. Below, are just a few of dozens
that I have. So, I don't see what the big deal is, other than to
start, yet another debate that will no doubt pollute the groups. This
is *exactly* the point I'm making. I mean, what is the motivation for
someone (yes, I got the post via email) to contact MENSA if not only
to stir up crap. Of course, this issue has been beaten to death
already. Matter, closed. More smoke and yet another reason to attack
me.
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p1.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p2.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p3.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p4.jpg
>He has lied for several years, to his detractors and supporters alike, here and elsewhere,
>created thousands of threads, etc. etc.
Lets talk about lying for a bit. What *exactly* have I lied about *for
several years*? While you're at it, why not point out what *you* have
lied about *for several years*. Heck, you are a noted detractor,
switched sides when the going was ludicrous and you're back on the
other side (talk about covert ops) because you *think* that my degree
not being accredited and my 'lying' about it, is such a big deal and
its easier to flame from the 'other side' than it is from here. Whats
the honor in that? Sure, I did *not* tell Dan, Pat, Joe, Karl, etc,
*where* the degree was from and I'm sure, in some ways some must feel
that I 'lied' to them, but, I don't think I'm going to see either of
that group attacking me for it. I was *not* forthcoming with the truth
for my *own* reasons, it is a *private* and *personal* matter for me
and bears *no* relevance to *anything* other than to *constantly*
attack me. There a *lot* things that I've told some acquaintances
here, over the years and I'm not prepared to go dig up private email
in order to satisfy the curiousity of a minority that I could care
less about. Didn't give a damn then, don't give a damn now.
In fact *you*, via email, *prompted* and *encouraged* me to *come
clean* after I told *you* things in *confidence*. I discussed it with
my attorneys, they told me *not* to do it, but I went ahead anyway.
Now you come here and do this to me? You should be ashamed of
yourself. I guess I asked for it but to tell you the truth, I am
surprised. Surprised because it is a case of "who knew!" and you are
the *last* person I expected it from. But, you know what, I'm not
going to attack you, nor am I going to get into any dialogue with you
about this. I'll let you wallow in your own actions & verse, and see
if you come out feeling clean...all on your own.
As I've said before, I will pay the price. If I ask Dan, Pat, Joe (who
has invited me several times) etc to go visit, do me a favor, give
advice etc, I'm sure they won't turn me away because I seemingly lied
to protect my *own* privacy and something that I felt was embarassing
to *me* and for *my* own reasons. This is exactly the reason I don't
have many friends and those that I do make, are loyal to me and have
been over the years. I choose my friends and acquaintances very
*carefully* because you never know who is going to stab you in the
back one day when you least expect it.
If Dan et al, wanted an apology from me, felt lied to or felt that
they deserved one, they would have contacted me here, or via email.
This has not happened and I don't expect it to.
One of the reasons that, in all these years, I'm still an industry
outsider. I don't give a damn about people's opinions of me. I am only
concerned about my game, my company and my fans, when it comes down to
it. When I go to shows, E3, ECTS, GDA, Meltdown etc, I don't go to rub
shoulders, pick up chics, organize cookouts or shoot the breeze. I go
because it benefits *me* and I can *learn* something. My development
progress alone, proves as much. Its what I'm good it and I *excel* at
it. If I have a problem and I send email to John Carmack or any other
peer in the industry, they don't judge me because in the industy, its
about treating each other with respect, even if I'm an asshole at
times and to those who *deserve* it. I've seen Andy Bain, Mr
Developer-but-I-cant-tell-you-which-title-I-wrote, himself, attacking
me, *blatantly* for *no* apparent reason. Jealously? I have asked my
attorneys to craft a strongly worded letter, the same kind was devised
to send to Sierra re:fthx and it will go to his publisher and
employers shortly if he keeps up.
Winding down.....
There are those here who would just wish that I fell of a third storey
building or something truly *bad* happens to me so that they can
continue to flame and gloat. Why? For what? wtf? I wrote a game, it
didn't do well, I released a better version for *free* (after more
than a *year*, it is *still* in the top 10 charts!!!), continued
working on it, for free - after taking a near $4m loss!!! I released
a new version, did an upgrade for $10 (cheap) even though I literally
*fought* with Interplay (the exec has since left and gone to Take Two,
go figure) because they did *not* want me to do it. I did it anyway.
The European fans started bitching about having to download patches,
they didn't get returns, the European press started talking about the
US release and its apparent success and what do I do? I go looking for
a deal (one of things I am very good at because the franchise speaks
for itself), get it, and now the game is coming to Europe this month.
www.bc3000ad.com/images/bc3kukbox.jpg
www.bc30000ad.com/images/bc3kukmanual.jpg
Of course, the product is selling (quite unexpected, to say the least)
above what was projected. The interest by the European retailers,
further exceeds our expectations and that alone will again, increase
the franchise exposure. Naturally, I'm supposed to have continued
failing, as per the '96 mishap, rather than continuing to make
progress and going up against *stiff* competition, the likes of
Sierra, Digital Anvil, Novalogic and even Volition. Well, I'm not
stopping there and one thing I know to be a *fact*, if the detractors
are dying a slow death over the progress of the franchise, whats
really going to cook their bacon is what BC:3020AD is going to do.
In fact, the European release of BC3K (v2.08) not only takes another
*huge* leap, it is, again, something I'm doing that *no* other game
*can* or will even *attempt* to do. Period. For years we have been
hearing *rumors* of an Electronic Battlefield, yet, nobody has done
it. I have and in all its glory, for *free* in v2.08 which goes online
in a few days once I have built all the patches. Even the testers
can't quite comprehend how much this changes the game, and better yet,
*why* I'm releasing it for *free* (as a patch to existing owners). In
fact, I'm going to build a new 2.0 demo next week based on the 2.08
TOC engine. Why am I releasing it, rather than holding it back for
BC:3020AD? Because it is not even 10% of what BC:3020AD is currently
capable of doing AND IN MULTIPLAYER. I just read a review of Command &
Conquer - Renegade (cool btw). Pah! Wait'll you see that, and much
more, in BC3K's persistent 3D world with *no* missions, *no*
restrictions, on the ground, on the sea, in the air and in space and
with kick-ass graphics. So, its not a hype. Go play the demo (when it
comes out next week) or upgrade to 2.08 and you be the judge. Then,
multiply that by a factor of 10, mix in multiplayer and the in-ship,
off-ship (on planets and in space) first person module and only *then*
will you even *begin* to imagine the onslaught. Now *that* is an
Electronic Battlefield and even with the multiplayer in BC:3020AD, the
ability to fly in space or planets, drive around in an ATV, destroy
targets from space, while your friends are running around in first
person perspective, is a reality that is happening *now*. And is even
more advanced in BC3K Online.
Oh, did I mention that I have a publisher and a multi-million dollar
deal for *both* titles? That oughta give you [detractor] nightmares
for a month. Multiplayer is the wave and I'm riding it.
Here is a shameless plug I put out
====================================================
Due to the popularity of BC3K v2.0x in the US, released by Interplay
on 12/98, the European divisions of GTi will be releasing a newly
improved version of BC3K based on the 2.08 kernel, dubbed
BATTLECRUISER 3000AD - Tactical Operations Command
Unlike Interplay's US release, the European release (due out this
month), will have the vastly improved v2.08 kernel (see the Red
entries in www.bc3000ad.com/files/bc3kver.html), a full 146
page printed manual and a separate printed keyboard sheet. The US
release did not have a keyboard sheet and it only had a trimmed down
40 page manual. Further, a lot of improvements, including a completely
revised and overhauled surface ops and fleet C&C engine, are new to
v2.08.
BC3K - TOC, is the first version in the series to feature a completely
integrated, fast and seamless Electronic Battlefield which allows you
to wage war on planets against air and ground units as well as in
space, while, yet another battle against boarding intruders could be
waging on your ship. Massive forces - Simultaneous action - Real-time
- No restrictions - *huge* universe.
You can deploy fighters on a variety of missions, such as S.E.A.D, as
your marines, deployed by transporters, shuttles or ATVs, take out air
and ground targets...while your Battlecruiser, using the devastating
power of the Orbit To Surface weapons, bombards bases from space! The
Random Access Nuclear Disruptor for Obsolete Matter, R.A.N.D.O.M,
weapon which completely devastates an entire planet, changing it's
topology, characteristics, weather pattern etc, is now readily
available and have been completely revised to include a spectator
camera which shows you the effects, from deployment to detonation, in
astonishing detail. The first time you use this weapon, you will see
the long lasting psychological and moral
impact. Trust me on this.
Yes, you have *got* to see it to believe it.
=========================================================
>There never was a legit legal issue, and probably never will be unless
>Bill Huffman decides to sue -him-.
Thats gotta be a classic. These words, you will eat one day, if its
the last thing I do in my lifetime; especially if you think that I did
not have a reason for posting about my degree accreditation. Like
those here, you know *nothing* about me. How this proceeds, will be
the ongoing topic for the next millenium no doubt. We will just
remember the stances of those here. But, most likely, like the many
aliases, most of you detractors will just slink away, quietly by the
time the dust settles. I suggest that you guys start donating to
Huffman's defense fund. By God he's gonna need it.
Anyway, we have since concluded that this whole farce is personal but
its easy to ride the waves and make all manner of assumptions when you
are neither the *target* nor the *attacker* in this prolonged farce.
It is always fun being on the outside, looking in.
You'll get yours. God *always* makes sure of that.
Have a nice day, Judas.
And now for the archives mentioned earlier:
====================================================
The fact of the matter is, Derek is not playing around. I am Derek's
attorney. I have been monitoring the usenet for quite a while, and am
well aware of the diatribe between you and and Derek. However, by
accusing Derek of fraud by not having a Ph. D., you have crossed the
line of "free speech".
"Free speech" does not mean unlimited speech. I am sure that you have
heard the example that a person cannot yell "fire" in a crowded
theater. Libel is another example of unprotected speech. Libel is a
written statement of fact, which is false, unprivileged and causes one
to sustain damages, such as harm to one’s reputation. Where the libel
bears upon a person's profession (such as the Ph. D. issue here), it
is deemed a libel 'per se', and is actionable without having to prove
damages.
This misinformation has been seen by many, not just the
people that happened to respond, and it has affected Derek’s relations
with potential publishers as well as potential customers. The fact
that you posted this on the internet only makes the libel case easier,
as you have completely satisfied the element of "publication".
Your accusations against Derek would be the same as if you took out an
add in your local paper, and claimed that a local doctor did not have
an M.D. Regardless of the personality of the doctor in question, you
would have committed libel. The situation here is the same. Further,
you cannot mask a libelous statement with "in my opinion, Derek does
not have a Ph. D." You have made unequivocal statements that Derek
Smart is a fraud. The fact that Derek chose not to disclose to you the
particulars of his Ph. D. is immaterial. The fact that you did not
discover the particulars of Derek's Ph. D. does not mean that Derek
does not have one. You posted misinformation at your peril. I am
completely confident that I can prove a libel case against you.
This situation is intolerable and must be resolved. So as to avoid
litigation, I offer the following resolution. You will remove from
any web site you control any and all material that has any bearing on
the issue of Derek Smart’s Ph. D., including but not limited to, text,
re-posts of other people’s messages, graphics, commentary, or links to
other websites posting similar information. Furthermore, you will
henceforth cease to publish in any forum whatsoever (including the
internet, television, radio, print media, etc.) any statement that
says or implies that Derek Smart does not have a Ph. D. In return,
Derek will agree not to mention this settlement, nor will he claim any
"victory". He will drop the issue as you will have so as not to cause
you any embarrassment.
This settlement is eminently favorable to you. I am not asking you to
do anything that will cause you embarrassment, such as the publishing
of an apology . I am also not asking you for any monetary settlement.
In the future, if you wish to post anything regarding Derek, you must
do so responsibly. Libel will not be tolerated.
If you do not agree to this resolution, you will indeed learn where
and when Derek received his Ph. D. However, this information will be
quite expensive. You can look forward to incurring substantial legal
fees for your defense in addition to any judgment that is ultimately
recovered. This settlement will not be offered again. I ask that you
consider it, and not make a hasty response that you may learn to
regret. If you wish, consult with an attorney. If either you or your
attorney wish to discuss this matter, my office number is (914)
683-2500.
===================================================
The issue here is one of libel 'per se', because the libel bears
directly on Derek's profession. So I need not have to prove damages;
they will be presumed. Notwithstanding, I am in a unique position (as
opposed to the rest of the newsgoup participants) to be able to prove
damages, if it came to that.
As far as the 'public figure' argument, all that does is add the
'malice' requirement to the libel prima facie case. That merely means
that the person committing the libel posted with reckless disregard
for the truth. Considering that Derek does indeed have a Ph. D.,
anyone claiming contrary is posting with reckless disregard for the
truth (Huffman's ridiculus "proofs" notwithstanding). It makes no
difference whastsoever that Derek never responded to requests for the
information.
His Ph. D. is a fact. Furthermore, the fact that Derek responded to
other unrelated flames is irrelevant.
=====================================================
This was the last correspondence between bILL and I after speaking on
the phone. It was around the same time as that whole farce with Dan's
daughter. An issue I tried to resolve via email. The reason the
lawsuit has not gone forward yet, is because I had dropped it back in
June '98 (against the advice of counsel) thinking that bILL would,
just stop. He didn't and in much the same way he said that if he was
caught lying, that he would drop. Most of his site, and the past
iterations, including this recent Dr. Bear incident, are lies. He's
still here.
====================================================
From: Bill Huffman <huf...@sparc.sandiegoca.ncr.com>
Received: (huffman@localhost) by si611 (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10907 for
dsm...@pobox.com; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:02:31 GMT
Message-Id: <199806181902.TAA10907@si611>
Subject: Re: Needing info.
To: dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
>
> At 10:53 AM 6/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Derek,
> >
> >Thanks for the email, I think it did me some good.
> >
> >You can be a downright charming asshole when you want
> >to be. Actually I've always seemed to be able to get
> >along with assholes. You know how it is "Birds of a
> >feather tend to flock together". :-)
> >
> >Take care,
> >Bill Huffman
>
> LOL! well, as the saying goes. It takes one to know one. :)
>
> ...anyway, FWIW I have decided, this morning, to drop this lawsuit
> business. It's counter-productive and not worth the aggravation seeing I haven't
>lost anything by your incessant accusations. I will be sending Eric
> a letter to the effect. Now, you can get online and scream your victory all
> you want but you won't get any response from me. My decision is not based
> on a win/lose, it's based on common sense. If you chose to do the right
> thing, be my guest. If you don't, it's your God too.
My tendency is to totally ignore it on-line. But, I will treat it
any other way you say.
>Of course, I reserve
> the right (as Nick mentioned) to continue at a later date if I so choose.
> Right now, I have a publishing deal to wrap up.
Good luck and I seriously mean that.
>
> You are the first person, besides Nick and my PR guy, to know this. I
> haven't been able to reach Eric. I think he's in court.
>
> Regards
>
>DS
>
========================================================
Shortly after, this showed up in my mailbox. I have censored the
writer's details for obvious reasons.
========================================================
From:
To: "Derek Smart" <dsm...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Huffman
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:29:38 -0500
X-Priority: 3
Huffman is totally classless. He is taking off exactly where he left
off, going after the "agreement" and posting email. The difference now
is that he says he is posting "unedited" versions of the mail
correspondence. He's updated his website as well.
Frankly, I hope you bury him.
=========================================================
This was an unconditional parting post from fthx
From: Ft...@aol.com
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA30301
for <dsm...@pobox.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:55:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ft...@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id XPRWa26053;
Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <796c4cd0...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:54:52 EDT
To: dsm...@pobox.com
Cc: rot...@ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Peace Offer from fthx
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52
Derek,
Here's a copy of a post I just made to the strategic group. I've
removed all mail filters from my account so you or anyone can
correspond with me. I intend to honor what I've said below (which is
an honest accounting), and I encourage you to read carefully and honor
its spirit.
Given the recent attempts to drag my personal life into this, this
probably doesn't suprise you. Note that my only surprise is that it
did not happen earlier. Also please note that any association I may
or may not have had with a certain "big name company" ended long ago,
so it would not be well to drag their name around any longer.
If you can accept the spirit of what I've said below, I will tell
anyone who asks by email that I have "made peace with Derek" and I
would encourage you to also tell people privately that you have "made
peace with fthx".
fthx
P.S. I'm cc-ing to the infamous lawyer in case you are blocking my
email. I'm not interested in any "negotiations", and my post below
represents my unconditional withdrawal from the public flamewar.
-------
Subject: My Turn To Apologize (BC3K)
Yesterday I saw on Derek's web site that he has a publisher
lined up for BC3K "V2.0" (I think--the web site seems to be
down as I write this [P.S. it's back up]), and that there would be a
press release from that publisher at the appropriate time.
I have no way of knowing what will really happen, but I've
decided that this announcement marks the end of the "Modern Era"
of BC3K flamewar that started over 70 weeks ago.
Whatever happens in the "next era", I think Derek is making a
reasonably honest and professional effort to try to move forward,
and despite my obvious differences with him, there's no need for
me to continue. For better or worse, I'm letting the actual BC3K
game stand on its own merits (or lack thereof). I've never
had an interest in the game, so I have nothing to say. Because
of the legendary status of the saga, some level of discussion will
likely go on forever, but I will not participate. I encourage anyone
who genuinely wishes the flamewar to die, to not post about it under
any circumstances, and learn to genuinely "ignore" the sniping. I
have removed all "mail filters" from my account, so anyone who wishes
to discuss anything with me can do it privately from now on.
I've secretly wanted to leave the "online game" for awhile,
but the "lawsuit wars" inflamed the situation enough that there
wasn't a graceful way out. Although I haven't corresponded
with Bill Huffman for awhile, I suspect that he's eager for
a rest, and his recent "Part 8a" post would seem to put the
issue to bed from his perspective. Given this, I don't think
there will be a better time for any of us to walk away.
Furthermore, the "alias paranoia" has become a bit absurd, with all
sides coming up with bizarre ideas about what's going on. Bill
Huffman's recent "References" mistake, along with my own extensive
misadventures concerning "j...@bsfilter.com", have made me finally
sit up and take notice. The current "online game" has become too
much of a "troll fest", which has not been my preferred mode of
behavior for quite some time. Therefore, this is another reason
I've decided to quit.
I won't rehash the past, but will just say that I'm finally ready
to say there's "nothing new here", and even if there is I've had
enough. Have I said "I quit" in enough ways yet? Are you ready
for the apologizing? OK, here goes:
-- I apologize to Derek Smart for any undue distress I've caused
him by excessive flaming. I've tried to avoid getting involved
in the genuinely "personal" issues, and only got involved at all
because of my own personal distress over his public behavior.
The ideas of "fun" and "truth" on usenet get confused to the point
where we all lose touch with things at some point, and I am not
without fault.
-- I apologize to BC3K fans for spamming the alt group recently.
This was an unnecessary escalation.
-- I apologize to Dan Brooks for excessive flaming about him recently.
Although I was annoyed by his behavior, given his attempts to pull
out of the flamewar, my posts were an unnecessary provocation.
-- I apologize to all other people I have sniped at, including
JAL, Mark Asher, David Thompson, Jon Ballinger, Jorge Diaz,
JMarti, S.Fong and others I've forgetten. Despite differences I
probably still have with all of you, my flaming was not necessary.
I've tried to avoid such things, but am not perfect.
-- I apologize for encouraging or condoning "below the belt" personal
attacks throughout the flamewar.
fthx
========================================================
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Derek Smart
..and this is the email I sent him earlier today when he first started
threatening to post confidential email. From his posts of the past few
days, this action, by him, was predictable.
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:28:46 -0400
>To: rre...@mindspring.com
>From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
>Subject: Confidential Email
>Bcc: luke...@mindspring.com, stlbl...@earthlink.net, p.mu...@fenomedia.nl, jack...@yahoo.com
>
>Ed
>
>I just saw both of your posts on the Usenet and it just confirms what I have been
>saying these few days: It seems that I was a fool to have trusted you, especially
>now that you are threatening to make confidential email, public. The good thing is
>that I have nothing to hide and if you post my emails, it won't change whats going
>on now. You did a good job of tricking me in order to win my confidence. Bravo!
>I never saw that one coming. It is definitely one for the books.
>
>I can't stop you and I would only point out the moral implications of posting email
>marked confidential. The ball is in your court. I wouldn't if I were you.
>
>Frankly, I maintain that you *should* be ashamed of yourself.
>
>Have a nice weekend.
>
>I have bcc'ed the following receipients.
>
>Dan Brooks
>Pat Muller
>jackyO
>Joe
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
foamy
>> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
>> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>Cue music...
>Should old acquaintance's be forgot
>and never brought to mind...
>Goodnight everybody, thanks for playing
>in the longest flamewar of the millennium!
>God Bless! Drive safe!
Closing time. Closing time ladies and gentlemen. Kindly
drink up or the waiters will have to remove the beer from
the tables.
So much for ending with a whimper.
A note to Ed: Smart, in using Dr. Bears name and book in
the manner he did in recent posts in light of the above
revelations, totally relieved you of any moral or ethical
consideration to honor your assertion of confidentiality.
Do not question yourself for a moment.
Jim
Gary Hladik
[Quoting Email allegedly from Ed Bain]
>>I would hang back from this, if I were you. She is very, very
>>intelligent and just as tenacious and obnoxious. She claims to
>>be a Subgenius, like me, but is pretty far over the top...
I looked up "subgenius" at www.m-w.com, but the closest I could come
was "subgenus." From what I know of Latin, though, it would seem that
nearly all of us are "subgeniuses" (subgenii?). :-)
Gary
Ed Bain
in msg <7rbv8k$n...@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>,
ga...@netcom.com (Gary Hladik) said :
>dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart) writes:
>
>I looked up "subgenius" at www.m-w.com, but the closest I could come
>was "subgenus." From what I know of Latin, though, it would seem that
>nearly all of us are "subgeniuses" (subgenii?). :-)
>
>Gary
hehe.. Here you go. Oh, and take a lunch.. :)
Jimmy Chan
wrote:
>removed a.e.d from headers. Ed and his friends seem to think that
>polluting the entire Internet with this drivel, is the norm.
Huh? PhD Fraud has a failure to work his newsreader properly, once
again? All he did was managed to munge the alt.education.distance to
alt.distance.education. Of course, a further post by the PhD Fraud
does happen to leave in a.e.d. Guess being a PhD Fraud must be
somewhat unsettling to the mind.
ScottZf
>
> Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
> dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
>
> In it, I promised to keep it private, between he and I.
> I will try to explain, here, why I feel it absolutely
> necessary to break my word.
>
> Derek continues to call me: 'dishonest', 'unloyal',
> 'detractor' etc. etc. on a -worldwide forum-, and continues
> to name-drop Dr Bear's name and book into the defense of his 'Ph.D.'.
> He calls those that question him all sorts of ugly names and has
> included death wishes in his arsenal of attacks.
>
> Maybe Derek doesn't mind being called 'dishonest' on a worldwide
> forum, archived forever in dejanews, but I do, and I told him so.
<snipped rest>
Ed, I guess I can see why you would take offense at such accusations.
But I really think that far to many people "involved" in this have really
"thin skins".
It is not important enough to get all worked up over.
Nobody should really get upset over a "flame war".
In the scheme of life, it is not that important.
YMMV, IMHO,etc, etc, etc......
Todd A Carter
energy that people have spent on this issue. The guy who posted a private
email, after promising confidentiality? You are despicable. Derek Smart,
although you deny caring what other think of you, your refusal for years
to admit where your degree came from belies that. Wouldn't it have been
easier to admit it in the first place? Or a year later? You have the
right concept, in doing what you think is best, but you still have let
others dictate your actions.
Personally, I don't give a damn who has a degree or not or how. It only
matters how good they do their job. And, that they are confident enough
to rest on their accomplishments without hiding anything.
Let's hope (futilely) that people have learned some lessons.
Sigh.
Todd Carter
In article <37dc6dd7...@news.mindspring.com>,
Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:59:05 -0400, PJL <"do$feratu"@m$n.com> wrote:
>
>One of the reasons that, in all these years, I'm still an industry
>outsider. I don't give a damn about people's opinions of me. I am only
>concerned about my game, my company and my fans, when it comes down to
>it.
>
>
>
>Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
>Designer/Lead Developer
>The Battlecruiser Series
>www.bc3000ad.com
>
>"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
>than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find
>himself in places no one has ever been. Someone lemme out!"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Carter
Dept. Genetics and Development
Columbia University
Allan Parent
"DAKTARI!" wrote:
>
> Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote in message
> news:37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com
>
> > Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
> > the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
> !!!!!!!!!!
> Boom!
> !!!!!!!!!!
>
> And I thought that Camille Klein was mean as a bag full of wet cats!
> --
Ouch! That has to hurt.
Allan
Allan Parent
>So much for trusting someone with confidential email. *sigh*. I guess
>now we can all question the credibility of the people who contact us
>via email, calling themselves lurkers, concerned few, just interested
>etc. If you all remember my post about Allan of this morning, *thats*
>what I'm talking about.
You sir, are the one that requested "proof" in front of God and
everybody. I delivered.
Allan
Allan Parent
>
> Ed, I guess I can see why you would take offense at such accusations.
> But I really think that far to many people "involved" in this have really
> "thin skins".
> It is not important enough to get all worked up over.
> Nobody should really get upset over a "flame war".
> In the scheme of life, it is not that important.
> YMMV, IMHO,etc, etc, etc......
Yes, Scott you are indeed correct. We (myself included) tend to get work
up over something that is meaningless in the big picture of things.
Allan
Istvan
I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
times did I have the chance to see a prick like
Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
of his personal e-mails.
I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
clear winner here:
Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
Derek Smart, I salute you!
Istvan Albert
http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
jackyo
Ed Bain wrote in message <37d9695b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
Question -
maybe Dr Bear could answer this one for us -
do any of the degree mills listed in his book *ACTUALLY* offer PHD's for
REAL coursework? I.e - would someone need to defend their thesis 2 times to
get a PHD from one of these schools? And do these schools normally publish
their student's thesis - remember, Derek's would have been published had he
not chosen to suppress it.
If Dr. Bear does indeed say that some of these schools DO INDEED require
full fledged work to get a PHD, well then we cannot rule out the fact that
Derek may indeed have a 'valid', if unaccreddited, PHD.
PJL
Derek Smart wrote in message <37dc6dd7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:59:05 -0400, PJL <"do$feratu"@m$n.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
>>> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>>>
>>
>>Cue music...
>>Should old acquaintance's be forgot
>>and never brought to mind...
>>
>>Goodnight everybody, thanks for playing
>>in the longest flamewar of the millennium!
>>God Bless! Drive safe!
>
>Pat, listen to yourself for a minute. Have you *really* thought about
>what you are reading? Forget about the game for a minute, have you
>thought about it? In case you missed it, here it is, again. Now you
>see why I was pissed at Eds recent turn. But, don't tell me, I know,
>you guys just want to play and the moral implications and facts are
>virtually meaningless.
>
I was thinking more along the line of the old Gracho Marx game show
where you won if you said the magic word. The magic word here being
'diploma mill.'
As for Mr. Bain, I thought he was way out of line going after Louis, but
it's
not my place to judge his morals. Only he can do that.
As for you, you flat out LIED here. I could care less what happens to you.
Let's just say you reap what you sow.
\\\\\\\\\\\
Pat Lundrigan
///////////
jackyo
Derek Smart wrote in message <37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com>...
>In fact, this is why I agreed to have an
>independent person, with no stakes and/or ties to the industry, look at
>it. Further thats where the confidence that, even though I did it for a
>degree mill, they would see and acknowledge that it was quality Ph.D.
>material.
What is the status of this? Who will be reviewing it, and when?
J. Miller
Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net> trolled in message
news:37D9AE08...@prodigy.net...
[snip]
> Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
> by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
>
> Derek Smart, I salute you!
>
> Istvan Albert
> http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
Ooooooboy is this gonna be good. This will go over like Hagadone at a
planning commision meeting. ( Inside joke for Scharmers ).
If this is'nt prime real estate for the follies ...... :)
-John "Outlaw" Miller
doodat-er
Istvan wrote in message <37D9AE08...@prodigy.net>...
>
>I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
>times did I have the chance to see a prick like
>Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
>
>First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
>Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
>a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
>of his personal e-mails.
>
>I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
>Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
>clear winner here:
>
Warren Brookman
-Fluke
Patrick Muller
Gary Hladik wrote:
> dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart) writes:
>
> [Quoting Email allegedly from Ed Bain]
>
> >>I would hang back from this, if I were you. She is very, very
> >>intelligent and just as tenacious and obnoxious. She claims to
> >>be a Subgenius, like me, but is pretty far over the top...
>
> I looked up "subgenius" at www.m-w.com, but the closest I could come
> was "subgenus." From what I know of Latin, though, it would seem that
> nearly all of us are "subgeniuses" (subgenii?). :-)
>
> Gary
Yeah, I did this on-line American IQ test the other day... 130, they said
"Entry level genius"
(and how 0.5% of the participents of IQ tests score over 150%)
Dan Snelson
DAKTARI! wrote in message <7rble2$sfr$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
>
>Boom!
>!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>And I thought that Camille Klein was mean as a bag full of wet cats!
>--
>histo...@hotmail.com
>
>
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:06:34 GMT, em...@bottom.com (Ed Bain) wrote:
>
>Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
>dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
>
>In it, I promised to keep it private, between he and I.
>I will try to explain, here, why I feel it absolutely
>necessary to break my word.
>
>Derek continues to call me: 'dishonest', 'unloyal',
>'detractor' etc. etc. on a -worldwide forum-, and continues
>to name-drop Dr Bear's name and book into the defense of his 'Ph.D.'.
>He calls those that question him all sorts of ugly names and has
>included death wishes in his arsenal of attacks.
>
>Maybe Derek doesn't mind being called 'dishonest' on a worldwide
>forum, archived forever in dejanews, but I do, and I told him so.
>
>I am going to break an unwritten 'rule' in the internet 'book',
>by posting this here on Usenet, because I am weary of his lies,
>and being used as a whipping boy for -his- problems.
>
>His credibility or lack thereof is -his- to own.
>It is not mine.
>
>I warned him, in posts today, to stop with the lies and insults
>toward me, on this worldwide forum, or I would post this, and
>he refused, preferring instead to continue to question my
>character, in a very public way, on this newsgroup.
>
>It should be noted that, until today, I have said NOTHING
>about the content of this email to anyone, except my
>wife. I have had no communications with any 'detractors',
>'supporters', or anyone else, about this, and I have said
>nothing on Usenet about the details of the email.
>
>For those that are interested in the genesis of this, I
>suggest you read the posts from Derek and myself over
>the last few days. I was going to post the direct dejanews
>links here, but I suggest that the readers simply search
>on our names at www.dejanews.com for the period of the last
>week. Please read them in the context of the threads involved.
>Then, ask yourself what you would have done.
>
>In this included email from Derek, there are some details that
>have little to do with the question at hand, and I considered
>snipping them, but decided that I wouldn't, in order to present
>the mail unedited, and hopefully unquestioned. The reader
>can draw their own conclusions as to 'honesty', etc...
>
>The 'Derek Smart, Ph.D. flamewar' has gone on long enough,
>and the person that has protracted it, is Derek Smart, the
>individual, not those that questioned his 'Ph.D'.
>
>I admire Derek Smart, the game developer, but his online
>persona, and his wild claims and insults toward me, and
>others, have now reached the point that I can't play his
>"plausible deniability" game anymore without damage
>to my own karma.
>
>I will not allow him to continue to hide behind an unwritten
>prohibition against posting private email, while simultaneously
>trashing my character, and the character of others in a
>worldwide forum.
>
>That's it.
>
>As I said in this newsgroup earlier, Derek has my ABSOLUTE
>permission to post any or all of my email to him.
>
>No more "plausible denial", Derek.
>
>Let the chips fall where they may.
>
>Here is the email, with no further comment.
>
>============ begin email ==============
>
>
>Return-Path: <dsm...@pobox.com>
>Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com ([207.69.200.82])
> by mx9.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id rsvt67.evn.37kbi17
> for <rre...@mindspring.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:18:15 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from server1 (user-38ld832.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.160.98])
> by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26061
> for <rre...@mindspring.com>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
>X-Sender: derek...@mindspring.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:18:05 -0400
>To: rre...@mindspring.com (Ed Bain)
>From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
>Subject: Re: ...about Huffman
>In-Reply-To: <37d0e750...@mail.mindspring.com>
>References: <4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
> <4.2.0.58.1999090...@mindspring.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >Hey Derek!
> >
> >Since I don't know the true status of your degree, etc. it
> >would be hard to advise you. Also, I, like you, would be
> >pretty PO'd at the abuse over the years. As I said, though,
> >I can understand why some people would be upset with someone
> >with the title Ph.D. with no proof, etc..
> >
> >But, in a perfect world, here are some of the -main- things
> >I would try to do.
> >
> >1) First and foremost, I would do -nothing- without an agreement
> >from Huffman to remove/destroy the site, and for him to take a hike.
>
>This is what my attorney suggested awhile back. He is away for
>a week (extended labor day weekend) and I will be speaking with him
>when he gets back.
>
> >Maybe this could be done, via a contract with Huffman, or some
> >other way. Your lawyer might be able to advise as to the method
> >that would be as iron-clad as possible. With him out of the way,
> >you should have an easier time on the newsgroup. Notice I said
> >destroy the site. Somehow, some assurance should be forthcoming
> >from Bill that the site will not simply be sent to another person
> >and mirrored. Ask your attorney how such an assurance could be
> >worded in your agreement with Huffman.
>
>Noted
>
> >2) Secondly, I am at a bit of a disadvantage since I have no
> >knowledge of what type of degree you have, other than the description
> >you gave (DL/non-accredited). Heck, if I had your thesis / degree
> >in front of me, I wouldn't know.. :)
>
>Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
>the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
>It didn't matter to me at the time and little did I realize that it
>would come back to haunt me. They (unfortunately, I'd rather not give
>you the name at this point if you don't mind) operate in much the same
>way that KWU operates here in the US which is why I had contacted KWU,
>back in '96, hoping that they were accredited. Didn't it strike you as
>odd that I was able to quote from the KWU brochure the other day on the
>group? Thats cause I have it my hand. A few months ago, they sent me
>another one and I even got to the point where they assigned an
>enrolment person to me (Brenda Cochran, 800-635-2900) but I never went
>ahead because I wasn't sure whether I was going to be in the same boat
>and hence my pointing out the 'licensed' vs the 'accredited' issue on
>the group. They even offered to give me credits but for $6000, I wanted
>more which is why I started investigating the Universities in my
>neighborhood and I have found one willing to give me credits for my
>work and they have *assured* me that I get the degree within 18 months.
>And they are accredited.
>
> >Now, where I'm headed with this is I sense that you may be 'attached'
> >to your own -pride- that prevents you, at this point, from allowing
> >Bill H. to dictate what you do. We ALL have that problem, I know I do.
>
>Yes, indeed and you are right. :(
>
> >Sooo...
> >
> >I recommend that you get an agreement with Huffman, that in exchange
> >for the -total and complete truth- about your degree, regardless of
> >it accreditation, etc., that he will destroy his site and ooze back
> >into the woodwork. So far, he hasn't stated he would do something
> >like that. He feels that he shoud have proof of accreditation, etc.
> >before yanking his site. At this juncture, faced with lawsuit, etc.,
> >maybe he would go for it. You would also have to forego any legal
> >action against Huffman.
>
>I will consider this and I have already contacted Dr Bear about it.
>And, ready for this, he thinks that I have *no* business even
>responding to that nonsense and if what I make of my degree,
>is my business as long as I have not broken any laws. Go figure.
>
> >I am talking -total- honesty here. If you sent $9.99 to xyz
> >university and received a piece of paper with Ph.D. stamped on it,
> >so be it.
>
>That was not the case
>
> >If you were duped into believing whatever school is
> >involved was accredited, so be it.
>
>That was not the case. I wasn't duped, accreditation just didn't
>matter to me at the time, I just wanted to do the work without having
>my studies affect my work and travels. I did it, on a whim because
>the offer was there.
>
> >If you did a real degree program, of some kind, from a less than stellar
>school, so be it.
>
>Unfortunately, I didn't and this is why I've kept it secret all along.
>How the hell was I to know that Huffman would be obssessed about it and
>become a rabid dog.
>
> >It doesn't matter after the agreement is done with Huffman. You would
>HONESTLY
> >tell the story and produce the sheepskin.
>
>Noted
>
> >At that point, I think you should adjust your title to whatever
> >you feel appropriate. Derek Smart Ph.D. 1996 - American University,
> >Distance Learning program, whatever. Better yet, stop using the
> >title publicly.
>
>*sigh*
>
> >Let your talent speak for you, not your title.
>
>Indeed
>
> >Derek, it's almost a spiritual issue. Think about the emotional
> >baggage that would be removed. At this point, in what I perceive
> >to be the situation, I believe I would be ready for some relief
> >from the burden.
>
>Yes, and that is what I have been striving to achieve. My attorneys
>have always advised me that if I go to court, that based on what Huffman
>has done over the years, that I *can* get him for libel because I did,
>at the time, studied for and acquired a degree, albeit, a non-accredited
>one via a DL institute, but nevertheless, a Ph.D. This is the only
>reason that I have been pursuing it. So far, I have spent a ton of money
>for experts in the field of libel and Internet crimes, that my attorneys
>have consulted. This is what has slowed the process down. My attorney in
>NY is my best friend and he won't lead me astray because he has no stakes
>in this. This is not some issue of attorneys telling the wrong thing, so
>that I spend money foolishly. He was the one who found the firm, he trusted,
>in CA, to handle the matter. They were skeptical at first but as they
>delved into the matter, they were convinced that Huffman can't be normal
>and that even producing the sheepskin, won't do anything. He would just
>change the site again, keep up and then continue to attack me for something
>else, say, 'accademic fraud' etc. Thats the problem. Huffman, as others will
>tell you, *cannot* be trusted and therefore only a decisive court decision
>will get him off me. Further, the fact this whole thing started on NCR's
>servers, brings them into the suit and I was advised that if I was awarded
>damages, that NCR would also be held liable. Dan and others, *know* whats
>going on back here and I can't say anything in open forum etc, so people
>think I'm just bluffing. I'm not. These things just take time.
>
> >Also, I am not recommending that you run out this afternoon and
> >'come clean'. Far from it. I am suggesting that you discuss it
> >with your attorney. Spend some quiet time thinking about it,
> >and then start to work on the deal with Huffman. A joint WIN-WIN
> >statement from both of you would be a superb way to make the
> >announcement. Huffman can crow a little about fraudulent diploma
> >mills, you can also crow about finally seeing the light and your
> >plan to move on and let your talent speak for you, not your
> >title.
>
>Noted. But remember, you are putting too much trust in Huffman.
>Ed, I can be trusted, apart from my own shortcomings, I am and have
>always been, a God fearing person. When I even told the world that
>my degree was from a DL institute, I had no problems with that,
>even though it was very embarassing for me. I was able to suck that
>in and it didn't change my life in *any* shape or form.
>
> >While the short-term effect might be one of lots of spewing from
> >the particularly nasty ones in the newsgroup, your support would
> >gain rapidly after the initial shock wore off, IMO.
>
>I agree and thats why my posts have been objected about this in the
>past few days.
>
> >You are going to have to -resist- at all costs, jabbing back
> >at the idiots during this transitional phase, or in the future.
> >
> >You can't do it, Derek.
>
>I agree
>
> >As far as any gaming press stuff that would arise, I think if you
> >handle it properly and -honestly-, they too would sense your sincerity,
> >and would get past it pretty quickly.
> >
> >The mandatory keys to this plan are:
> >
> > 1) Rock-solid deal with Huffman.
> > 2) Absolute, unequivocal honesty on your part.
> > 3) Joint WIN-WIN statement from Huffman and you.
> > 4) Cooling it, during the transitional phase.
> > 5) Honesty and lack of jabbing back on your part, in the future.
> > 6) Get your game finished and get rich.. :)
>
>hehe, nice check list <g>
>
> >It is changing your -attachment- to pride I am talking about here.
> >I, personally, would have trouble doing it, but after the years
> >of the flamewar, yeah I think I could decide to be happy, move on
> >and get rich.
>
>I agree 100%
>
> >I bet you didn't expect preaching, huh?
>
>nah, it's ok. I've learned a lot. The truth is, back when this was
>all going on, I was a nobody Ed, I had a failed game, there were and
>there are still those who are jealous of me. Even for the very fact
>that I have the ability to continue to do high-profile deals and
>progress in the face of failure ('96 that is) and it was just too much
>for me to add this who Ph.D. issue to it. Now, my game has spoken for
>my talent, I continue to make progress and in a way, I have succeeded
>now where I seemingly failed in '96. The outcome of this, is irrelevant
>to me and if my thesis didn't contain technology that I use in my game,
>and which would cause me to lose the edge on my games (and probably make
>my current and future publishers nervous) I would just put the damn thing
>on my site and be done with it. In fact, this is why I agreed to have an
>independent person, with no stakes and/or ties to the industry, look at
>it. Further thats where the confidence that, even though I did it for a
>degree mill, they would see and acknowledge that it was quality Ph.D.
>material. Of course, the other side of the spectrum is who does the thesis
>and technology belong to? I had a lengthy fight with the granting body,
>and won. If I hadn't then I would have had to put that work in the public
>domain or worse, pay them royalties on work, i.e, my game, that it was used
>in. It is a very, very complex matter and thats why I have remained silent
>and just taking all the potshots. It goes beyond Huffman, beyond pride etc.
>My very future depends on the integrity and security of that work.
>
> >I''l talk to you later. I hope this helps in some way.
>
>It does help and I have learned a lot. We'll see how it goes. You would be
>best served contacting Huffman and perhaps you can find a way for him to
>save face in all this, because I'm not particularly interested in giving
>him a free ticket; not after all these years. I simply cannot do that because
>I would be the laughing stock from now until eternity. Look what I've endured
>for almost three years Ed. Think about that for a minute.
>
> >As always, any email will be kept private.
>
>I know and thats why I trust you.
>
>Derek Smart, Ph.D.
>Designer/Lead Developer
>The Battlecruiser Series
>www.bc3000ad.com
>
>"It's not everyone telling me it can't be done that bothers me.
>It's them interrupting me while I'm doing it!"
>
>============ end email ============
Quatoria
--
"It's time for you to go home to your wives and children..it's time for me to be dead for a while, and then live again...
Hello, Farewell."
-Billy Pilgrim, Slaughterhouse Five
"Oh Benson, dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."
-Evil, Time Bandits
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
as well, but when you don't like an accusation, you don't usually go
out of your way to prove that accusation true in a worldwide fourm.
IE: "You called me dishonest, so I'm going to post e-mail after I
promised you I wouldn't to prove how not dishonest I am!"
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:55:25 -0500, "ScottZf" <sco...@dwave.net>
wrote:
>
>Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote in message
>news:37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com...
>>
>> Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
>> dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
>>
>> In it, I promised to keep it private, between he and I.
>> I will try to explain, here, why I feel it absolutely
>> necessary to break my word.
>>
>> Derek continues to call me: 'dishonest', 'unloyal',
>> 'detractor' etc. etc. on a -worldwide forum-, and continues
>> to name-drop Dr Bear's name and book into the defense of his 'Ph.D.'.
>> He calls those that question him all sorts of ugly names and has
>> included death wishes in his arsenal of attacks.
>>
>> Maybe Derek doesn't mind being called 'dishonest' on a worldwide
>> forum, archived forever in dejanews, but I do, and I told him so.
>
><snipped rest>
>
>Ed, I guess I can see why you would take offense at such accusations.
>But I really think that far to many people "involved" in this have really
>"thin skins".
>It is not important enough to get all worked up over.
>Nobody should really get upset over a "flame war".
>In the scheme of life, it is not that important.
>YMMV, IMHO,etc, etc, etc......
>
Waver
and such on the flight sim group...
waver
\
Ed Bain
in msg <37d9da3d$0$18...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
"Waver" <Wav...@hotmail.com> said :
>thats weird, since revved was very upset when someone posted his real e-mail
>and such on the flight sim group...
>
>
>waver
>
>
>\
>
Bullshit. Prove it.
It's A Van
>times did I have the chance to see a prick like
>Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
I think this is a very stupid idea. Things that make life more complicated
and offer nothing extra, suck, and no proof required.
>First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
>Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
>a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
>of his personal e-mails.
Derek Smart, it is your mind, soul and face that gets elegantly parried and
then he just goes schizophrenic.
>I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
>Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
>clear winner here:
A very clear but also powerful translation indeed. The translator did not
amount to AI, it is one of the most despised people would applaud your
efforts to discredit someone based on some racial or other discriminative
argument.
>Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
>by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
I think this is a good chance ts is in the otherwise muddy prose making it
a truly great game but I want him to present the picture as a game. So
postpone your amazement.
>Derek Smart, I salute you!
I'm telling you is the idiotic game play totally boring. I just don't get
it, that's too bad for you.
--
Vanist
x
with out getting consent from the author. Derek has lied for 3 years
about his Ph.D., prompting THOUSANDS of off topic posts. He is getting
what he deserves.
Istvan wrote:
>
> I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
> times did I have the chance to see a prick like
> Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
>
> First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
> Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
> a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
> of his personal e-mails.
>
> I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
> Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
> clear winner here:
>
> Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
> by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
>
> Derek Smart, I salute you!
>
> Istvan Albert
> http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
ray m
Colin
I know not of the flame war between Ed and Derek, and I am not really
interested.
All I know is.. Ed is a regular poster here, and offers help when he can.
During my over 3 years of checking this group, I have never noticed you
until now, could you be a Troll?
Colin
Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:37D9AE08...@prodigy.net...
emery
DAKTARI! wrote:
> Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote in message
> news:37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com
>
> > Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
> > the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
> !!!!!!!!!!
> Boom!
> !!!!!!!!!!
>
> And I thought that Camille Klein was mean as a bag full of wet cats!
> --
> DAKTARI!
> histo...@hotmail.com
Y'know, this makes an obscure bit of half remembered psychobabble come to
mind.
I think it goes:
" Every roaring demon, every fire belching dragon, snarling chimera or stone
splitting ogre acts with such brutality and ruthlessness because deep down it
believes it is engaged in the protection of a very small, defenseless, and
terrified child. It is painful to be split between such extremes. Thus the
paladin's fight against monsters is only sucessfully carried out with the
weapons of compassion, mercy, understanding, and comfort. The monster is
ALWAYS the product of a helpless child. The monster is an explanation for
pain, and the illusion of defense. It always disappears when the child is
rescued or succored. To learn love and honor one must let go of fear. To
defeat a monster one must first offer shelter to the child it guards and then
show the child that the monster was always powerless."
Yeah, it's kind of bull shit, but it kind of isn't.
I know what you're thinking: " Mmmmm Corn N' Ham together again!"
Well I deserve it. :)
Don't bother, I'll plonk myself.
BTW .....I-War rocks!
Emery
Jonathan Dalton
Oh dear. That didn't sound sarcastic, either.
jon
Jan-Albert van Ree
>
> I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
> times did I have the chance to see a prick like
> Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
Troll...
*Ploink*
--
Jan-Albert "Sliver" van Ree | java...@3dgamers.com
3D Sims Archive maintainer | http://www.3dgamers.com
Patrick Muller
x wrote:
> Derek Smart has posted many personal email messages that he received
> with out getting consent from the author. [snip]
How many of those emails ended like this?
Pizaz
-mike
Ed Bain <em...@bottom.com> wrote in message
news:37d951f6...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
> dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
>
> In it, I promised to keep it private, between he and I.
> I will try to explain, here, why I feel it absolutely
> necessary to break my word.
>
> Derek continues to call me: 'dishonest', 'unloyal',
> 'detractor' etc. etc. on a -worldwide forum-, and continues
> to name-drop Dr Bear's name and book into the defense of his 'Ph.D.'.
> He calls those that question him all sorts of ugly names and has
> included death wishes in his arsenal of attacks.
>
> Maybe Derek doesn't mind being called 'dishonest' on a worldwide
> forum, archived forever in dejanews, but I do, and I told him so.
>
> Unfortunately for me, and I'm trusting you with this, it is one of
> the degree mills (note the difference) listed in Dr Bear's book. *sigh*
>
> >As always, any email will be kept private.
>
> I know and thats why I trust you.
>
> Derek Smart, Ph.D.
> Designer/Lead Developer
> The Battlecruiser Series
> www.bc3000ad.com
>
> "It's not everyone telling me it can't be done that bothers me.
> It's them interrupting me while I'm doing it!"
>
> ============ end email ============
>
Derek Smart
wrote:
>As for you, you flat out LIED here. I could care less what happens to you.
>Let's just say you reap what you sow.
Thats fine by me. You've never lied in your life. So, let he who is
without fault, caste the first stone.
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find
himself in places no one has ever been. Someone lemme out!"
Derek Smart
wrote:
I wasn't refering to you Allan.
Derek Smart
wrote:
>
>I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
>times did I have the chance to see a prick like
>Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
>
>First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
>Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
>a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
>of his personal e-mails.
>
>I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
>Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
>clear winner here:
>
>Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
>by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
>
>Derek Smart, I salute you!
>
>Istvan Albert
>http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
franchise and my sanity.
To thine own self, be true. I always am.
Derek Smart
>Derek Smart has posted many personal email messages that he received
>with out getting consent from the author.
Liar! prove it! Easy isn't it?
DAKTARI!
Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:37e0616f...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> >Istvan Albert
> >http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
>
> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>
> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
> franchise and my sanity.
"sanity.....?"
--
DAKTARI!
histo...@hotmail.com
Istvan
>
> Geezus! You're worse than Linda Tripp.
Same ballpark.
And also let me tell you about the fight with his inner self
that revved went thru. First maybe somewhat innocently he started
posting in Derek Smart's favor. At this point he was honest, at
least he thought he is. But then, foolishly, in an e-mail Derek
admitted to him for the first time in three years and in tens
of thousands of posts that he has a diploma mill accreditation.
Poor revved, he knew, if he could be able to prove hat he
would be a hero, the smart, cute, dragon slaying,
princess fondling, gold munching famous kind that is.
Otherwise he would remain a relatively unkown but still respected
peasant on the Usenet.
So what else could he do? Just posting the e-mails directly
would have been too much for his stomach. He rather
choose another path, the one called "why doncha dig your
own grave, Derek?"
He changed sides and started a dirty tactics of attacking and
threatening him in an effort to make Derek say things that would
make him feel "justified" in posting his e-mail. Well, he got his way.
There is a saying that goes something like this:
"Oh Lord, protect me from my friends as from my enemies I can defend
myself."
biographer,
Istvan.
Chuck
while, but then slid back to the same pattern of half-truths to make yourself
look in a better light. BTW, I love the long rants which end with "cant be
bothered" and essentially "I'm outta here" and then you keep posting. Like
others, I'm very worried about your psyche lately, your paranoia is
troublesome. Maybe a talk with a therapist?? I'm really not kidding.
Later,
Chuck
Derek Smart wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:34:09 -0700, "PJL" <Do$feratu@email.m$n.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As for you, you flat out LIED here. I could care less what happens to you.
> >Let's just say you reap what you sow.
>
> Thats fine by me. You've never lied in your life. So, let he who is
> without fault, caste the first stone.
>
Chuck
the same ones over and over again are amazing. Some people have no concept of honor or
honesty, just use the world as they see fit. I personally find these people abhorrent.
Now, have you realized the anguish you have just caused Mr. Smarts girlfriend. I smell a
lawsuit brewing. (please note the coffee reference)
Later,
chuck
Ed Bain wrote:
snip
Greg Cisko
>Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
To hell with all that other stuff. I'm wondering what the hell is this
"PhD (non-accredited)" stuff??? I'm sure it doesn't mean you
got your (uh hmm...) PhD from a cracker jack box :-)
Shit, I'm not an accredited PhD either.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
Allan Parent
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 23:20:24 GMT, Allan Parent <all...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Derek smart wrote:
> >
> >>So much for trusting someone with confidential email. *sigh*. I guess
> >>now we can all question the credibility of the people who contact us
> >>via email, calling themselves lurkers, concerned few, just interested
> >>etc. If you all remember my post about Allan of this morning, *thats*
> >>what I'm talking about.
> >
> >You sir, are the one that requested "proof" in front of God and
> >everybody. I delivered.
> >
> >Allan
>
> I wasn't refering to you Allan.
>
> Designer/Lead Developer
> The Battlecruiser Series
> www.bc3000ad.com
>
In that case, my apologies.
Allan
Worker Working
>
>
> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>
> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
> franchise and my sanity.
>
>
I can see from some of the other replies to this post that you can't say
ANYTHING without being dogged.
Relax. Enjoy. Life's too short.
Kevin Stewart
post.
Just some trivia for some trivia. 8~ )
- the ghoti
DAKTARI! wrote in message <7rdpmk$7fn$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
snipped
>> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
>> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>>
>> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
>> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
>> franchise and my sanity.
>
>"sanity.....?"
>--
>DAKTARI!
>histo...@hotmail.com
>
>
A.J. Roberts
> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
You mean your right to lie about your credentials for 3 years in a public
forum? Your right to attempt to intimidate anyone who probed into your
lies? To mask that as a right to privacy is quite a stretch. Derek
Spinmaster, hard at work.
> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
> franchise and my sanity.
Yeah. It's just too bad none of them can trust you.
> To thine own self, be true. I always am.
Too bad you can't seem to be true to anyone else.
> Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
read: DIPLOMA MILL!
foamy
"Kevin Stewart" <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote:
>The question mark goes outside the quotes, since it isn't part of Dereks'
>post. ^^^^^^
In order to indicate individual possession or authorship
the apostrophe should have been placed as such: Derek's
>Just some trivia for some trivia. 8~ )
Just some Windex to clean your house. <G>
Jim
Derek Smart
<noneyo...@mindpsring.com> wrote:
>
>Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:37e0616f...@news.mindspring.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:04 -0500, Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Istvan Albert
>> >http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
>>
>> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
>> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>>
>> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
>> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
>> franchise and my sanity.
>
>"sanity.....?"
Well, I admit, thats a stretch. :)
Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.bc3000ad.com
"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further
Rez Manzoori
--
Rez Manzoori
(www.manzoori.demon.co.uk)
ICQ# 17763861
Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:37e16223...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:06:15 -0400, x <xan...@nac.net> wrote:
>
> >Derek Smart has posted many personal email messages that he received
> >with out getting consent from the author.
>
> Liar! prove it! Easy isn't it?
>
>
Derek Smart
wrote:
>> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
>> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>
>You mean your right to lie about your credentials for 3 years in a public
>forum? Your right to attempt to intimidate anyone who probed into your
>lies? To mask that as a right to privacy is quite a stretch. Derek
>Spinmaster, hard at work.
I'm not going to plonk you, rather, I'm going to try and be
reasonable. Seeing that someone cross-posted this thread over to
flight-sim, I have no choice.
It is very *easy* to lambast, character assasinate, harrass, insult,
stab and do all those things to another, from behind the safety of
this medium. While it is very hard to refute statements made by some,
it is *not* very hard to discard, disregard, scoff at and/or simply,
ignore, crap from incessant and notorious assholes. There is no
defense against online assholes, like you for instance, one just has
to live with them.
This is the post that sparked Ed's actions. In it, I called him
dishonest. He further proved it by posting private and confidential
email in trying to justify it. I will first start by posting the email
he posted, my pre-warning email and finally, the post that sparked it.
So, without further ado, wrap your brain around this and the next
retort I get from you, you'll hear the thud as you hit the far wall of
my kill file. The *plonk* doesn't even begin to describe it. From that
point on, you can post anything you want, only you and your
girlfriends, will get to read and agree acknowledge it, and the
sensible majority will draw their own conclusions.
Without further ado....
===== CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TO ED WHICH HE POSTED =======
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:18:05 -0400
To: rre...@mindspring.com (Ed Bain)
From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: ...about Huffman
Noted
Noted
*sigh*
Indeed
I agree
I agree 100%
=== MY EMAIL TO HIM AFTER HE MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD POST IT===
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:28:46 -0400
To: rre...@mindspring.com
From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>
Subject: Confidential Email
Bcc: luke...@mindspring.com, stlbl...@earthlink.net,
p.mu...@fenomedia.nl, jack...@yahoo.com
Ed
I just saw both of your posts on the Usenet and it just confirms what
I have been saying these few days: It seems that I was a fool to have
trusted you, especially now that you are threatening to make
confidential email, public. The good thing is that I have nothing to
hide and if you post my emails, it won't change whats going
on now. You did a good job of tricking me in order to win my
confidence. Bravo! I never saw that one coming. It is definitely one
for the books.
I can't stop you and I would only point out the moral implications of
posting email marked confidential. The ball is in your court. I
wouldn't if I were you.
Frankly, I maintain that you *should* be ashamed of yourself.
Have a nice weekend.
============ THE POST THAT SPARKED IT ALL ===============
On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:30:15 GMT, em...@bottom.com (Ed Bain) wrote:
I have to run, so, I'll be quick and brief. I already said that I
wasn't going to play anymore and seeing you guys creating all those
threads in my honor, truly gives me a strange, warm, fuzzy feeling.
Since Ed, in so few words summarized the issue, I'll do the same. So,
without further ado, let this erupt into a 500+ post thread. I'll just
watch in amusement.
>Your point is well-taken, but the legal issues are pretty moot at this point.
Speculation. My next move, is *specifically* geared to surprise
no-one. It'll be a killer.
>Derek, in recent days, has admitted to having no accredited degree,
Yes, this is true. A few years ago, I said that my degree was
accredited, when it wasn't. I wasn't misled nor was I not aware that
it was not accredited. I just didn't want to admit it because I found
it less than flattering. Further, at the time, my product had just
bombed (thanks to Take Two), I was emotionally unstable and common
sense had taken a backseat to ego. Recently, because of the impending
lawsuit about to be filed against Bill Hufffman, his ISP and possibly
his employers, I had to clear up the issue, for the record, without
putting myself in jeopardy. My attorney(s) argued against it, but I
did what I wanted to do, *knowing* that I'd get flamed for it and that
Huffman and his cronies, who have dogged me for almost 3 years (for no
plausible reason other than pure hate) would claim victory. Their
opinions aren't even a fraction of the big picture, so, the means, for
me, justified the end. I said that I would deal with the consequences
and I am doing so. If I have any regret, it is because I didn't do it
sooner. Regardless, it wouldn't have made *any* difference because,
almost a *year* ago, I mentioned, for the first time, to the public (a
few 'acquaintances' here, already knew for over 3 years)
In my desire to keep the origins of the degree private (as I said, due
to the stigma associated with DL degrees), I was not forthcoming with
any info, let alone bothered with a correction. Had I corrected it,
then, I would not have been any better off than I am today for the
mere fact that, accredited or not, DL or not, it would not have made a
difference to those who seek to persecute me.
This, was my mistake. I'm human, therefore, I can.
To whit, these groups are constantly plagued by off-topic posts and
threads that seek nothing other than to cause me harm, discomfort and
embarrassment. They do neither (embarrassment, maybe, to a minor
degree) and I find it all too amusing at times.
Finally, since common sense is not an attribute normally found here
and since these forums are just a medium for folks, who probably
flunked HS, never even saw the bright side of a college campus, and
who are probably deemed socially inept or worse, psychologically
disturbed and riddled with low self-esteem personalities, I have to
ask: Has anyone *really* thought about all this? I mean, truly thought
about it? I know that all these DAs (Desktop Attorneys) *think* they
know what they're talking about and since talk is cheap when the
rhetoric bears no relevance to *real world* events, has anyone
*really* thought about it? I study chaos theories and I have done in
the past, and in my past readings on similar subjects, I have always
tried to draw the correlation between 'cause' and 'effect'. You'd be
surprised how much those two, seemingly simple words, come into play.
Here is how I look at it and I'm going to be as brazen as I can.
1. Someone questioned the quality of my game and started a thread akin
to "....he is a Ph.D. and wrote this piece of crap?' That sparked the
who debate. Sideline: I can think of several Ph.Ds (you know who they
are)( in the industry, who sat down and wrote a *dismal* game, that,
well, bombed.
2. Some queried the whole Ph.D. issue. I played it off because it was
a definite no-no and off limits. Huffman and I made a bet in which I
told him that he could not find it (he didn't. he lost) *knowing*
that he wouldn't. I had hoped that, it would end there. I was wrong.
3. Huffman then embarked on a crusade to 'bring me down'. So far, he
has not succeeded and he *never* will. Period. In his quest, he put up
a website, which has changed over the years to suit his stance. He has
lied, commited libel and knowing that what he writes here, he has
probably said to others, slander. He has harrassed me in more ways
than one. Over what? That my degree is not accredited or even worse,
according to him, non-existent?
He sends emails (highly unusual behavior) to mag editors in the hopes
of drawing attention to his cause. He failed and several the mails
found their way back to me of course. He posts on gaming forums (eg
over at Evil Avatar and others) and elsewhere. Each time I post here,
on-topic and about my *game*, he injects it with his usual diatribe.
He does it to newbies, who, unknowingly, come here to get info about
the game. He does it, regardless of where on the Net I post.
Constantly. All the time. Everytime. Thats harrassment and I have more
proof than anything.
4. In an attempt to get him to stop, we contacted NCR who are aware of
the issue and got him to stop posting from their servers. He gets a DN
account and posts from there and not from work. He continues the
farce.
5. He tries to get Dr Bear involved in his crusade and *lies* about
the good Doctor's involvement to the degree that it is pitiful to even
watch, in classic bILL style, as he dances around the issue as he has
so many in the past.
6. He continues on this crusade and whether I post or not, it is
irrelevant. If someone does something seemingly wrong (depending on
how you look at it) or which you don't approve of, there is no legal
recourse that gives anyone the right to harrass them over it, put up
websites, take out newspaper adds, pee in their law, scratch their
car, carryout drive-by egg throwing etc. You just can't do it. Period!
7. Even if I don't post, the discussion continues and seemingly takes
on a life of its own as people find more things to talk about (as
we'll see in a minute) that bear *no* relevance to this discussion
group.
8. In a move, designed to remove the 'grey area' in the whole Ph.D.
debate, I made it clear that the degree was not accredited. I had, for
*months* (and DN has all my archived posts), after indicating that it
was from a DL institute (which, in itself, should have been a clue.
duh!), made it clear that it was not accredited. Gone is the canned
"....accredited or not, from a cereal box or not, I have a degree and
one that I am proud off..." but somehow, some choose to regard this as
some sudden revelation. The kind you get when you finally score and
find that you can't get it up. Smoke. No fire.
And if I was man enough to admit that I was not forthcoming, I can be
man enough to take the aggravation that it brings with it because I
know that it is *nothing* new to my employees, fans, friends and
acquaintances. It bears *no* relevance to real life as I know it. The
president of the United States, lied to the *entire* world, let me
emphasize that so it sinks in, the *entire* world. Politicians do it
*everyday*, kids lie in school, we lie to our parents, spouses,
colleagues, friends, neighbors, the bill collectors etc. Who goes out
and creates web sites, takes out ads in the paper and *continues* to
harrass us over it? Who?? Who?? Who??? What is the plausible
motivation and/or the pay off if not to borne of a sick and deluded
mind?
So, I lied to the newsgroup to protect *my* right to privacy And? I
certainly didn't lie to anyone else, especially those who already
*knew* and didn't care. In fact, I just didn't want Huffman get ahold
of that particular piece of information because of what I knew he
would do with it. Heck, look what he has done for THREE YEARS when he
DIDN'T even know or had a *clue*. The whole premise just simply took
off from there and with the onslaught and barrage of harrassment and
abuse, there was no turning back because IT DID NOT MATTER, he would
still have continued, regardless. He has. I was right.
How many times has he not pledged to end this farce, and didn't?
At the end of this post, you will find some archived correspondence
that my attorney sent out in '98 and which led to several, including
fthx, baZ to get off this ride (assuming they didn't just create new
aliases). It remains consistent with my stance, today.
This is why, I have, over the months, maintained that this goes
*beyond* anything to do with the degree. It is just an excuse for bILL
to continue harrassing me and this is what I am suing him for.
Certainly, the Ph.D issue will come up in court because that is how it
all started, but I can assure you, it will probably last all of ten
minutes (according to my attorneys) in the case.
I cannot just up and sue someone and blow money away unless I was
*certain* that I would prevail. I gain *nothing* by bringing a
frivolous suit against a nobody like bILL Huffman. I don't have that
big an ego, otherwise I would *never* have even acknowledged, in open
forum and in the midst of a pack of wolves, that my degree was, in
fact, no accredited. I'm crazy, but not stupid. For this reason, the
groundwork takes time and since attorneys aren't paid with air, I have
to hedge my bets to the degree that the end will justify the means.
I told Huffman, on several occasion that if he leaves me alone, takes
his site down and cleans up his sig, that would be the *end* of this
matter. My attorneys, like my friends and supporters, and as it
evident here even though there is *nothing* more to this farce, do not
believe this would ever happen. Therefore, I have no choice but to
proceed, if only to ensure that *if* I do prevail (and thats for the
courts to decide) that there is a landmark hearing that will determine
the outcome of any action that I take against anyone who does the same
thing. Why? because, even if bILL withdraws now, there is nothing to
stop someone else, or even him under an alias, to start it up. sadly,
only a court order is going sort this one out. In fact, the first
thing we're doing now, is to get an injunction against his ISP and
make them aware that they are party to an impending lawsuit. I am
sure that they will advice Huffman of the wording of the notice and
there will be no grey areas in determining what I am doing. Then, I
will probably sue them *and* NCR for damages (because they originally
hosted his behavior on their servers), depending on the outcome,
because Huffman has no assets to speak off and is basically worthless
as a damage suit target. I'm not on a money making venture and in
fact, if any damages are awarded, it would probably be eaten up by the
attorney fees anyway. The rest, I'll probably give to charity. I make
money the *hard* way, I *earn* it.
Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit, it is the outcome of said suit
that bears any relevance to future discussions on said merits.
9. I have *always* maintain that I had a degree and that accredited or
not, from the back of a cereal box or from a cookie jar, that it was
something that I am proud of because I did it at a time when I was
involved in a lot of real life events and didn't even think I'd finish
it. Of course, then, only those, as I've said, who have been to my
offices, even know I have one, hanging on the wall where it has always
been. Unknown to most, I *knew* that it may seem worthless to some
employers, depending on what job I would be applying for. Further, it
is not unusual for people without *any* degree whatsoever to hold jobs
in higher position, with a *lot* more authority and money, than those
with degrees up the wazoo. I am highly talented and experienced in
what I do and therefore the thought of even worrying about what an
employer (non-existent) would think if they saw that I got a degree
from a DL institute, never even crossed my mind. To play it safe and
for my own peace of mind, I had started looking into DL institutes in
the US and came across KWU, which is how I was able to quote,
verbatim, what I had posted. So yes, I have been aware of the
implication of having an unaccredited degree *if* I wanted it to mean
anything to anyone else, but me. I didn't go forward for the reasons I
have already stated. For about $10K ($4K more than an unaccredited
degree from KWU), I can get a bona fide one from a local college and I
have been, for several months, comtemplating it. This in fact, was one
of the reasons I moved from Miami to Fort Lauderdale almost a year
ago.
10. Ask yourself, *why* is this going on? What does it do? What is the
justification if not to *continuously* harrass someone?
>and apparently was never a member of MENSA.
This is a *simple* one.
Again, there was a discussion in which I mentioned that I was once a
member of MENSA. Someone said prove it and I couldn't because that was
several years ago and back in the UK. So instead, I posted a scanned
copy of the letter that I got from MENSA when I had, several months
earlier, asked them about my membership records. If you check the date
of the post, you will see that it came long *after* I had even
contacted MENSA. So, it wasn't an issue of me contacting them *after*
I was asked to prove it. That being the case, why would I contact them
to re-instate my membership if I was never a member in the first
place...especially why would I contact the UK chapter? I even called
and they told me that I could, if I wanted, re-register here with the
US chapter. I have joined and left a lot of organisations, including
the CGDA, over the years; heck, I even have a piece of rock from Mars
(or an asteroid, can't remember).
I don't see what the big deal is. Below, are just a few of dozens
that I have. So, I don't see what the big deal is, other than to
start, yet another debate that will no doubt pollute the groups. This
is *exactly* the point I'm making. I mean, what is the motivation for
someone (yes, I got the post via email) to contact MENSA if not only
to stir up crap. Of course, this issue has been beaten to death
already. Matter, closed. More smoke and yet another reason to attack
me.
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p1.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p2.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p3.jpg
www.bc3000ad.com/temp/p4.jpg
>He has lied for several years, to his detractors and supporters alike, here and elsewhere,
>created thousands of threads, etc. etc.
Lets talk about lying for a bit. What *exactly* have I lied about *for
several years*? While you're at it, why not point out what *you* have
lied about *for several years*. Heck, you are a noted detractor,
switched sides when the going was ludicrous and you're back on the
other side (talk about covert ops) because you *think* that my degree
not being accredited and my 'lying' about it, is such a big deal and
its easier to flame from the 'other side' than it is from here. Whats
the honor in that? Sure, I did *not* tell Dan, Pat, Joe, Karl, etc,
*where* the degree was from and I'm sure, in some ways some must feel
that I 'lied' to them, but, I don't think I'm going to see either of
that group attacking me for it. I was *not* forthcoming with the truth
for my *own* reasons, it is a *private* and *personal* matter for me
and bears *no* relevance to *anything* other than to *constantly*
attack me. There a *lot* things that I've told some acquaintances
here, over the years and I'm not prepared to go dig up private email
in order to satisfy the curiousity of a minority that I could care
less about. Didn't give a damn then, don't give a damn now.
In fact *you*, via email, *prompted* and *encouraged* me to *come
clean* after I told *you* things in *confidence*. I discussed it with
my attorneys, they told me *not* to do it, but I went ahead anyway.
Now you come here and do this to me? You should be ashamed of
yourself. I guess I asked for it but to tell you the truth, I am
surprised. Surprised because it is a case of "who knew!" and you are
the *last* person I expected it from. But, you know what, I'm not
going to attack you, nor am I going to get into any dialogue with you
about this. I'll let you wallow in your own actions & verse, and see
if you come out feeling clean...all on your own.
As I've said before, I will pay the price. If I ask Dan, Pat, Joe (who
has invited me several times) etc to go visit, do me a favor, give
advice etc, I'm sure they won't turn me away because I seemingly lied
to protect my *own* privacy and something that I felt was embarassing
to *me* and for *my* own reasons. This is exactly the reason I don't
have many friends and those that I do make, are loyal to me and have
been over the years. I choose my friends and acquaintances very
*carefully* because you never know who is going to stab you in the
back one day when you least expect it.
If Dan et al, wanted an apology from me, felt lied to or felt that
they deserved one, they would have contacted me here, or via email.
This has not happened and I don't expect it to.
One of the reasons that, in all these years, I'm still an industry
outsider. I don't give a damn about people's opinions of me. I am only
concerned about my game, my company and my fans, when it comes down to
it. When I go to shows, E3, ECTS, GDA, Meltdown etc, I don't go to rub
shoulders, pick up chics, organize cookouts or shoot the breeze. I go
because it benefits *me* and I can *learn* something. My development
progress alone, proves as much. Its what I'm good it and I *excel* at
it. If I have a problem and I send email to John Carmack or any other
peer in the industry, they don't judge me because in the industy, its
about treating each other with respect, even if I'm an asshole at
times and to those who *deserve* it. I've seen Andy Bain, Mr
Developer-but-I-cant-tell-you-which-title-I-wrote, himself, attacking
me, *blatantly* for *no* apparent reason. Jealously? I have asked my
attorneys to craft a strongly worded letter, the same kind was devised
to send to Sierra re:fthx and it will go to his publisher and
employers shortly if he keeps up.
Winding down.....
There are those here who would just wish that I fell of a third storey
building or something truly *bad* happens to me so that they can
continue to flame and gloat. Why? For what? wtf? I wrote a game, it
didn't do well, I released a better version for *free* (after more
than a *year*, it is *still* in the top 10 charts!!!), continued
working on it, for free - after taking a near $4m loss!!! I released
a new version, did an upgrade for $10 (cheap) even though I literally
*fought* with Interplay (the exec has since left and gone to Take Two,
go figure) because they did *not* want me to do it. I did it anyway.
The European fans started bitching about having to download patches,
they didn't get returns, the European press started talking about the
US release and its apparent success and what do I do? I go looking for
a deal (one of things I am very good at because the franchise speaks
for itself), get it, and now the game is coming to Europe this month.
www.bc3000ad.com/images/bc3kukbox.jpg
www.bc30000ad.com/images/bc3kukmanual.jpg
Of course, the product is selling (quite unexpected, to say the least)
above what was projected. The interest by the European retailers,
further exceeds our expectations and that alone will again, increase
the franchise exposure. Naturally, I'm supposed to have continued
failing, as per the '96 mishap, rather than continuing to make
progress and going up against *stiff* competition, the likes of
Sierra, Digital Anvil, Novalogic and even Volition. Well, I'm not
stopping there and one thing I know to be a *fact*, if the detractors
are dying a slow death over the progress of the franchise, whats
really going to cook their bacon is what BC:3020AD is going to do.
In fact, the European release of BC3K (v2.08) not only takes another
*huge* leap, it is, again, something I'm doing that *no* other game
*can* or will even *attempt* to do. Period. For years we have been
hearing *rumors* of an Electronic Battlefield, yet, nobody has done
it. I have and in all its glory, for *free* in v2.08 which goes online
in a few days once I have built all the patches. Even the testers
can't quite comprehend how much this changes the game, and better yet,
*why* I'm releasing it for *free* (as a patch to existing owners). In
fact, I'm going to build a new 2.0 demo next week based on the 2.08
TOC engine. Why am I releasing it, rather than holding it back for
BC:3020AD? Because it is not even 10% of what BC:3020AD is currently
capable of doing AND IN MULTIPLAYER. I just read a review of Command &
Conquer - Renegade (cool btw). Pah! Wait'll you see that, and much
more, in BC3K's persistent 3D world with *no* missions, *no*
restrictions, on the ground, on the sea, in the air and in space and
with kick-ass graphics. So, its not a hype. Go play the demo (when it
comes out next week) or upgrade to 2.08 and you be the judge. Then,
multiply that by a factor of 10, mix in multiplayer and the in-ship,
off-ship (on planets and in space) first person module and only *then*
will you even *begin* to imagine the onslaught. Now *that* is an
Electronic Battlefield and even with the multiplayer in BC:3020AD, the
ability to fly in space or planets, drive around in an ATV, destroy
targets from space, while your friends are running around in first
person perspective, is a reality that is happening *now*. And is even
more advanced in BC3K Online.
Oh, did I mention that I have a publisher and a multi-million dollar
deal for *both* titles? That oughta give you [detractor] nightmares
for a month. Multiplayer is the wave and I'm riding it.
Here is a shameless plug I put out
====================================================
Due to the popularity of BC3K v2.0x in the US, released by Interplay
on 12/98, the European divisions of GTi will be releasing a newly
improved version of BC3K based on the 2.08 kernel, dubbed
BATTLECRUISER 3000AD - Tactical Operations Command
Unlike Interplay's US release, the European release (due out this
month), will have the vastly improved v2.08 kernel (see the Red
entries in www.bc3000ad.com/files/bc3kver.html), a full 146
page printed manual and a separate printed keyboard sheet. The US
release did not have a keyboard sheet and it only had a trimmed down
40 page manual. Further, a lot of improvements, including a completely
revised and overhauled surface ops and fleet C&C engine, are new to
v2.08.
BC3K - TOC, is the first version in the series to feature a completely
integrated, fast and seamless Electronic Battlefield which allows you
to wage war on planets against air and ground units as well as in
space, while, yet another battle against boarding intruders could be
waging on your ship. Massive forces - Simultaneous action - Real-time
- No restrictions - *huge* universe.
You can deploy fighters on a variety of missions, such as S.E.A.D, as
your marines, deployed by transporters, shuttles or ATVs, take out air
and ground targets...while your Battlecruiser, using the devastating
power of the Orbit To Surface weapons, bombards bases from space! The
Random Access Nuclear Disruptor for Obsolete Matter, R.A.N.D.O.M,
weapon which completely devastates an entire planet, changing it's
topology, characteristics, weather pattern etc, is now readily
available and have been completely revised to include a spectator
camera which shows you the effects, from deployment to detonation, in
astonishing detail. The first time you use this weapon, you will see
the long lasting psychological and moral
impact. Trust me on this.
Yes, you have *got* to see it to believe it.
=========================================================
>There never was a legit legal issue, and probably never will be unless
>Bill Huffman decides to sue -him-.
Thats gotta be a classic. These words, you will eat one day, if its
the last thing I do in my lifetime; especially if you think that I did
not have a reason for posting about my degree accreditation. Like
those here, you know *nothing* about me. How this proceeds, will be
the ongoing topic for the next millenium no doubt. We will just
remember the stances of those here. But, most likely, like the many
aliases, most of you detractors will just slink away, quietly by the
time the dust settles. I suggest that you guys start donating to
Huffman's defense fund. By God he's gonna need it.
Anyway, we have since concluded that this whole farce is personal but
its easy to ride the waves and make all manner of assumptions when you
are neither the *target* nor the *attacker* in this prolonged farce.
It is always fun being on the outside, looking in.
You'll get yours. God *always* makes sure of that.
Have a nice day, Judas.
And now for the archives mentioned earlier:
====================================================
The fact of the matter is, Derek is not playing around. I am Derek's
attorney. I have been monitoring the usenet for quite a while, and am
well aware of the diatribe between you and and Derek. However, by
accusing Derek of fraud by not having a Ph. D., you have crossed the
line of "free speech".
"Free speech" does not mean unlimited speech. I am sure that you have
heard the example that a person cannot yell "fire" in a crowded
theater. Libel is another example of unprotected speech. Libel is a
written statement of fact, which is false, unprivileged and causes one
to sustain damages, such as harm to one’s reputation. Where the libel
bears upon a person's profession (such as the Ph. D. issue here), it
is deemed a libel 'per se', and is actionable without having to prove
damages.
This misinformation has been seen by many, not just the
people that happened to respond, and it has affected Derek’s relations
with potential publishers as well as potential customers. The fact
that you posted this on the internet only makes the libel case easier,
as you have completely satisfied the element of "publication".
Your accusations against Derek would be the same as if you took out an
add in your local paper, and claimed that a local doctor did not have
an M.D. Regardless of the personality of the doctor in question, you
would have committed libel. The situation here is the same. Further,
you cannot mask a libelous statement with "in my opinion, Derek does
not have a Ph. D." You have made unequivocal statements that Derek
Smart is a fraud. The fact that Derek chose not to disclose to you the
particulars of his Ph. D. is immaterial. The fact that you did not
discover the particulars of Derek's Ph. D. does not mean that Derek
does not have one. You posted misinformation at your peril. I am
completely confident that I can prove a libel case against you.
This situation is intolerable and must be resolved. So as to avoid
litigation, I offer the following resolution. You will remove from
any web site you control any and all material that has any bearing on
the issue of Derek Smart’s Ph. D., including but not limited to, text,
re-posts of other people’s messages, graphics, commentary, or links to
other websites posting similar information. Furthermore, you will
henceforth cease to publish in any forum whatsoever (including the
internet, television, radio, print media, etc.) any statement that
says or implies that Derek Smart does not have a Ph. D. In return,
Derek will agree not to mention this settlement, nor will he claim any
"victory". He will drop the issue as you will have so as not to cause
you any embarrassment.
This settlement is eminently favorable to you. I am not asking you to
do anything that will cause you embarrassment, such as the publishing
of an apology . I am also not asking you for any monetary settlement.
In the future, if you wish to post anything regarding Derek, you must
do so responsibly. Libel will not be tolerated.
If you do not agree to this resolution, you will indeed learn where
and when Derek received his Ph. D. However, this information will be
quite expensive. You can look forward to incurring substantial legal
fees for your defense in addition to any judgment that is ultimately
recovered. This settlement will not be offered again. I ask that you
consider it, and not make a hasty response that you may learn to
regret. If you wish, consult with an attorney. If either you or your
attorney wish to discuss this matter, my office number is (914)
683-2500.
===================================================
The issue here is one of libel 'per se', because the libel bears
directly on Derek's profession. So I need not have to prove damages;
they will be presumed. Notwithstanding, I am in a unique position (as
opposed to the rest of the newsgoup participants) to be able to prove
damages, if it came to that.
As far as the 'public figure' argument, all that does is add the
'malice' requirement to the libel prima facie case. That merely means
that the person committing the libel posted with reckless disregard
for the truth. Considering that Derek does indeed have a Ph. D.,
anyone claiming contrary is posting with reckless disregard for the
truth (Huffman's ridiculus "proofs" notwithstanding). It makes no
difference whastsoever that Derek never responded to requests for the
information.
His Ph. D. is a fact. Furthermore, the fact that Derek responded to
other unrelated flames is irrelevant.
=====================================================
This was the last correspondence between bILL and I after speaking on
the phone. It was around the same time as that whole farce with Dan's
daughter. An issue I tried to resolve via email. The reason the
lawsuit has not gone forward yet, is because I had dropped it back in
June '98 (against the advice of counsel) thinking that bILL would,
just stop. He didn't and in much the same way he said that if he was
caught lying, that he would drop. Most of his site, and the past
iterations, including this recent Dr. Bear incident, are lies. He's
still here.
====================================================
From: Bill Huffman <huf...@sparc.sandiegoca.ncr.com>
Received: (huffman@localhost) by si611 (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10907 for
dsm...@pobox.com; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:02:31 GMT
Message-Id: <199806181902.TAA10907@si611>
Subject: Re: Needing info.
To: dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
>
> At 10:53 AM 6/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Derek,
> >
> >Thanks for the email, I think it did me some good.
> >
> >You can be a downright charming asshole when you want
> >to be. Actually I've always seemed to be able to get
> >along with assholes. You know how it is "Birds of a
> >feather tend to flock together". :-)
> >
> >Take care,
> >Bill Huffman
>
> LOL! well, as the saying goes. It takes one to know one. :)
>
> ...anyway, FWIW I have decided, this morning, to drop this lawsuit
> business. It's counter-productive and not worth the aggravation seeing I haven't
>lost anything by your incessant accusations. I will be sending Eric
> a letter to the effect. Now, you can get online and scream your victory all
> you want but you won't get any response from me. My decision is not based
> on a win/lose, it's based on common sense. If you chose to do the right
> thing, be my guest. If you don't, it's your God too.
My tendency is to totally ignore it on-line. But, I will treat it
any other way you say.
>Of course, I reserve
> the right (as Nick mentioned) to continue at a later date if I so choose.
> Right now, I have a publishing deal to wrap up.
Good luck and I seriously mean that.
>
> You are the first person, besides Nick and my PR guy, to know this. I
> haven't been able to reach Eric. I think he's in court.
>
> Regards
>
>DS
>
========================================================
Shortly after, this showed up in my mailbox. I have censored the
writer's details for obvious reasons.
========================================================
From:
To: "Derek Smart" <dsm...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Huffman
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:29:38 -0500
X-Priority: 3
Huffman is totally classless. He is taking off exactly where he left
off, going after the "agreement" and posting email. The difference now
is that he says he is posting "unedited" versions of the mail
correspondence. He's updated his website as well.
Frankly, I hope you bury him.
=========================================================
This was an unconditional parting post from fthx
From: Ft...@aol.com
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA30301
for <dsm...@pobox.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:55:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ft...@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id XPRWa26053;
Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <796c4cd0...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:54:52 EDT
To: dsm...@pobox.com
Cc: rot...@ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Peace Offer from fthx
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52
Derek,
Here's a copy of a post I just made to the strategic group. I've
removed all mail filters from my account so you or anyone can
correspond with me. I intend to honor what I've said below (which is
an honest accounting), and I encourage you to read carefully and honor
its spirit.
Given the recent attempts to drag my personal life into this, this
probably doesn't suprise you. Note that my only surprise is that it
did not happen earlier. Also please note that any association I may
or may not have had with a certain "big name company" ended long ago,
so it would not be well to drag their name around any longer.
If you can accept the spirit of what I've said below, I will tell
anyone who asks by email that I have "made peace with Derek" and I
would encourage you to also tell people privately that you have "made
peace with fthx".
fthx
P.S. I'm cc-ing to the infamous lawyer in case you are blocking my
email. I'm not interested in any "negotiations", and my post below
represents my unconditional withdrawal from the public flamewar.
-------
Subject: My Turn To Apologize (BC3K)
Yesterday I saw on Derek's web site that he has a publisher
lined up for BC3K "V2.0" (I think--the web site seems to be
down as I write this [P.S. it's back up]), and that there would be a
press release from that publisher at the appropriate time.
I have no way of knowing what will really happen, but I've
decided that this announcement marks the end of the "Modern Era"
of BC3K flamewar that started over 70 weeks ago.
Whatever happens in the "next era", I think Derek is making a
reasonably honest and professional effort to try to move forward,
and despite my obvious differences with him, there's no need for
me to continue. For better or worse, I'm letting the actual BC3K
game stand on its own merits (or lack thereof). I've never
had an interest in the game, so I have nothing to say. Because
of the legendary status of the saga, some level of discussion will
likely go on forever, but I will not participate. I encourage anyone
who genuinely wishes the flamewar to die, to not post about it under
any circumstances, and learn to genuinely "ignore" the sniping. I
have removed all "mail filters" from my account, so anyone who wishes
to discuss anything with me can do it privately from now on.
I've secretly wanted to leave the "online game" for awhile,
but the "lawsuit wars" inflamed the situation enough that there
wasn't a graceful way out. Although I haven't corresponded
with Bill Huffman for awhile, I suspect that he's eager for
a rest, and his recent "Part 8a" post would seem to put the
issue to bed from his perspective. Given this, I don't think
there will be a better time for any of us to walk away.
Furthermore, the "alias paranoia" has become a bit absurd, with all
sides coming up with bizarre ideas about what's going on. Bill
Huffman's recent "References" mistake, along with my own extensive
misadventures concerning "j...@bsfilter.com", have made me finally
sit up and take notice. The current "online game" has become too
much of a "troll fest", which has not been my preferred mode of
behavior for quite some time. Therefore, this is another reason
I've decided to quit.
I won't rehash the past, but will just say that I'm finally ready
to say there's "nothing new here", and even if there is I've had
enough. Have I said "I quit" in enough ways yet? Are you ready
for the apologizing? OK, here goes:
-- I apologize to Derek Smart for any undue distress I've caused
him by excessive flaming. I've tried to avoid getting involved
in the genuinely "personal" issues, and only got involved at all
because of my own personal distress over his public behavior.
The ideas of "fun" and "truth" on usenet get confused to the point
where we all lose touch with things at some point, and I am not
without fault.
-- I apologize to BC3K fans for spamming the alt group recently.
This was an unnecessary escalation.
-- I apologize to Dan Brooks for excessive flaming about him recently.
Although I was annoyed by his behavior, given his attempts to pull
out of the flamewar, my posts were an unnecessary provocation.
-- I apologize to all other people I have sniped at, including
JAL, Mark Asher, David Thompson, Jon Ballinger, Jorge Diaz,
JMarti, S.Fong and others I've forgetten. Despite differences I
probably still have with all of you, my flaming was not necessary.
I've tried to avoid such things, but am not perfect.
-- I apologize for encouraging or condoning "below the belt" personal
attacks throughout the flamewar.
fthx
========================================================
===== THE DEBATE THAT MADE ME UPDATE MY SIG =====
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:46:44 GMT, Douglas Hendrix
<hen...@stardock.com> wrote:
>Derek,
>
>his point is that when people, such as myself, who spent 4 1/2 years
>working on PhD at an accredited university, watch you just append a
>clearly unearned title at the end of your name, it makes them angry and
>it makes you look foolish.
>
>For what it's worth, I think you are a talented game developer and you
>shouldn't need to claim a degree you haven not earned (and don't possess)
>in order to gain respect. You clearly have what it takes to earn a PhD,
>(intelligence, perserverence, motivation...) however, you are simply unwilling
>to incur 4 years of the opportunity cost of working toward said degree.
>I don't blame you in that regard, sometimes I look at how much money I lost
>in potential salary during those 4 years and kick myself. But one thing is for
>certain, only those who have actually been through an accredited program
>deserve to be called Dr.
>
>Now do the right thing and remove that PhD from your sig until you have one
>from an accredited university.
>
>Douglas Hendrix
>Stardock Systems
>
>PhD '96
>Astrophysics/Plasma Physics
>University of California, Irvine
What a refreshing break. I accept and respect your opinion Douglas and
will continue to ponder my next move going forward. That said..
However, though it is a non-accredited degree, let me ask you this,
how does it make the work that I put it into it, less that what you
put into yours from a class room. This is the concept that I simply
*cannot* wrap my brain around. After all, that is what a DL institute
is for and several have non-accredited programs which *are* accepted
the world over and even by most top level employers. Dr Bear's book,
the most complete and excellent resource, proves that much.
Further, with the advent of the digital age and notwithstanding the
stigma associated with fraudulent operations handing out diplomas for
a fee, what is the recourse? Are we to embrace the Internet and the
ease it brings into most of our online activities which discarding the
very notion of promotion further education? Are we then to assume that
the future of education will be remain archaic simply because one has
to be in a physical classroom in order to be considered having worked.
Further along, I know how the CS degree program works, on and off
campus. It it not Biology or Chemistry, which require a certain amount
of lab work that we are talking about here. We are talking about a
field that, if you look at the sylabus from most schools, it will be
obvious that need not step a foot into a class room. Also, it is about
discipline. Sure, studying from home breeds the need to cheat but
being in the classroom does not alleviate that either. If there was an
exam that I had to take, similar to GSAT or something, that would
acknowledge my hard work, I would take it in a heart beat and would
have nary a doubt in my mind that I would pass with flying colors.
For the same reason I did the degree through DL, I could not afford
the work downtime because I had a good career, safe life and I just
did not want to disrupt that. I didn't do it in order to get a job (I
haven't worked for anyone in almost 10 years and until '95, I was
still a consultant to computer corps), I did it because, simply, I
felt like it. It was about prestige and ego I guess. It wasn't about
sibling rivalry either. Also, the institute allowed me privacy, ease
of studies and I didn't have to make my technology public. My whole
work that I currently do, as you know, centers around *very* advanced
AI technology I created from the ground up and I am extremely
protective of it because it gives me the edge. In fact, the other day
I was on the phone with the counselor of a local college that offers
Ph.D degrees in CS (you probably read the other threads in which some
people suggested various colleges and I have been looking into one
with an accredited program) and I asked the same thing. She told me
*point blank* that I would be better off *not* doing the degree
because I'd have to list my dissertation unless is was a matter of
national security or some crap to that effect. So, if I do enrol, I'd
have to do a dissertation on something *completely* different and
which I wouldn't care if it was listed or not. It would be like
starting from scratch. Apart from that, I don't think doing a thesis
on the hazards of game development, is going to fly. Do you? :)
I am open to suggestions in this regard because I have *full*
intentions of enrolling in an accredited program for my own personal
advancement and nothing else.
Further along, how about those institutions that give our honorary
degrees to folks who *never* even either went to school there or
stepped foot in a degree program. What about them? At least I did the
work, accredited or not. In fact, I plan on contacting Princeton
University (cause I have a contact there) to see if I could get into a
program or some sort of recognition if they found my technology in my
dissertation, worthy. Naturally, I don't particularly plan on upping
and moving to NJ (though I have a pad in NYC) even if they did let me
enrol, but, I'm sure I could get some good suggestions on how to
proceed, before I enrol in a local school here in Fort Lauderdale.
Believe me, I am not doing this to piss people off, it just seems that
way. Many years ago, how was I to know that this whole thing would
come to this? Talk about hindsight. This is why I maintain that once
it got out of hand, there was no turning back and yes, I regret saying
that it was accredited when it wasn't but I did that for a specific
reason, as I have already stated.
I am torn in what to do and not do, further, I have a lawsuit pending
because Huffman *refuses* to back the hell off me. Apart from that,
removing the Ph.D. from my sig is one thing, feeling good about it is
another. Besides, it would just be one more thing to attack me for and
the detractors would have a field day. Case in point: yesterday, I was
moving my Euroda mailbox around and forgot to update Agent for my sig
file. Before you know it, one of them, Daktari (man of many aliases),
was quick to stab at me for it. No doubt you saw the post in this same
thread? Now *thats* what I'm talking about. I also need justification
(as you aptly put it that anyone not of an accredited program, should
not be refered to as Dr.) for removing those initials because right
now, I just *don't* see anything other than people's isolated
opinions. Besides, people rarely call me Dr. and in fact, my employees
could care less and lets not even talk about the fan base.
This is not an issue that has to be polled. All around us there are
people in high places who end up in the same predicament. Saw
somethingon Wired earlier this week, saw something in the NYT awhile
back etc. But I *did* the work. In fact, I just saw something in the
Monday edition of The Herald (www.broward.com) in which a bunch of
students where suing a local college because they failed to tell said
students that their physical fitness program lost its degree program
accreditation! Imagine that.
I don't know what to do but perhaps with the proper debate and
dialogue, I will find a solution. It all boils down to public opinion
and I think the world knows how I feel about that. I plan on
contacting Dr Bear privately for advice and go from there. Eitherway,
I will do whats best for *me* and whats *right*; and *not* whats best
based on public opinion. I don't strive on public opinion and I can be
a jackass all day about it and it won't change people's opinion of me.
I will always, Ph.D. or not, be me, Derek Smart.
Thanks for your opinion. See what happens when people are reasonable?
Some, Ph.D. or not, just feel like they can attack someone and have a
teddy bear thrown back at them. Fuck 'um, Ph.D and all.
=================================================
Derek Smart wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:46:44 GMT, Douglas Hendrix
> <hen...@stardock.com> wrote:
>
> >Derek,
> >
> >his point is that when people, such as myself, who spent 4 1/2 years
> >working on PhD at an accredited university, watch you just append a
> >clearly unearned title at the end of your name, it makes them angry and
> >it makes you look foolish.
> >
> >For what it's worth, I think you are a talented game developer and you
> >shouldn't need to claim a degree you haven not earned (and don't possess)
> >in order to gain respect. You clearly have what it takes to earn a PhD,
> >(intelligence, perserverence, motivation...) however, you are simply unwilling
> >to incur 4 years of the opportunity cost of working toward said degree.
> >I don't blame you in that regard, sometimes I look at how much money I lost
> >in potential salary during those 4 years and kick myself. But one thing is for
> >certain, only those who have actually been through an accredited program
> >deserve to be called Dr.
> >
> >Now do the right thing and remove that PhD from your sig until you have one
> >from an accredited university.
> >
> >Douglas Hendrix
> >Stardock Systems
> >
> >PhD '96
> >Astrophysics/Plasma Physics
> >University of California, Irvine
>
> What a refreshing break. I accept and respect your opinion Douglas and
> will continue to ponder my next move going forward. That said..
>
> However, though it is a non-accredited degree, let me ask you this,
> how does it make the work that I put it into it, less that what you
> put into yours from a class room. This is the concept that I simply
> *cannot* wrap my brain around. After all, that is what a DL institute
> is for and several have non-accredited programs which *are* accepted
> the world over and even by most top level employers. Dr Bear's book,
> the most complete and excellent resource, proves that much.
One problem with this is that I gave up 4 years of a career to earn a
PhD.
My salary in 1995 was 1/6 of what I make now. Because of this, most
PhDs feel like you gotta pay your dues similarly if you want to be
called Dr.
Not to mention that if it worked the way you are saying, then
everybody with
5 years of work experience in some industry should automatically be
awarded
a PhD. My boss is a great example, he has a MS Physics and 20 years
of
Aerospace industry experience, but he made his choice not to pursue a
PhD
and instead get a job and so he is not a Dr., but I, his subordinate,
am.
Another problem with this is that I spent 2 of those years travelling
the world
presenting my work in front of the worlds experts and defending it
against
their criticisms. I published 4 papers in Astrophysics Journals and
defended
my work formally against criticism from referees. The result is
something you
just can't achieve via a non-accredited school. The quality of a
dissertation
accepted by an accredited school is something you can't match with DL.
>
> Further, with the advent of the digital age and notwithstanding the
> stigma associated with fraudulent operations handing out diplomas for
> a fee, what is the recourse? Are we to embrace the Internet and the
> ease it brings into most of our online activities which discarding the
> very notion of promotion further education? Are we then to assume that
> the future of education will be remain archaic simply because one has
> to be in a physical classroom in order to be considered having worked.
I have no qualms with remote research. Toward the end of my grad
studies,
I worked mostly alone in my offfice or at home. In the beginning,
however, I
really knew nothing about the subject matter of my research and needed
the pointers from my advisor to make sure I was going in the right
direction.
This is most likely the reason for residency requirements. It's the
kind of thing
that you have to have been there to realize how much you grow as a
scholar
and a scientist by going through an accredited PhD program and having
an
advisor who is a world expert in a field.
>
> Further along, I know how the CS degree program works, on and off
> campus. It it not Biology or Chemistry, which require a certain amount
> of lab work that we are talking about here. We are talking about a
> field that, if you look at the sylabus from most schools, it will be
> obvious that need not step a foot into a class room. Also, it is about
> discipline. Sure, studying from home breeds the need to cheat but
> being in the classroom does not alleviate that either. If there was an
> exam that I had to take, similar to GSAT or something, that would
> acknowledge my hard work, I would take it in a heart beat and would
> have nary a doubt in my mind that I would pass with flying colors.
I agree here. Though, for example, my research was purely
theoretical,
so I had no real requirements to be on campus other than what I
mentioned
above. In the field of neural networks, there is also a lot of heady
theory.
I would imagine that studying under the tutelage of an academic expert
would
really be necessary to fully understand the current state of ther art
and to be
able to formulate ground breaking research. BTW, there is a professor
at UC
Irvine in the Physics Dept. doing research in neural nets.
> For the same reason I did the degree through DL, I could not afford
> the work downtime because I had a good career, safe life and I just
> did not want to disrupt that. I didn't do it in order to get a job (I
> haven't worked for anyone in almost 10 years and until '95, I was
> still a consultant to computer corps), I did it because, simply, I
> felt like it. It was about prestige and ego I guess. It wasn't about
> sibling rivalry either. Also, the institute allowed me privacy, ease
> of studies and I didn't have to make my technology public. My whole
> work that I currently do, as you know, centers around *very* advanced
> AI technology I created from the ground up and I am extremely
> protective of it because it gives me the edge. In fact, the other day
> I was on the phone with the counselor of a local college that offers
> Ph.D degrees in CS (you probably read the other threads in which some
> people suggested various colleges and I have been looking into one
> with an accredited program) and I asked the same thing. She told me
> *point blank* that I would be better off *not* doing the degree
> because I'd have to list my dissertation unless is was a matter of
> national security or some crap to that effect. So, if I do enrol, I'd
> have to do a dissertation on something *completely* different and
> which I wouldn't care if it was listed or not. It would be like
> starting from scratch. Apart from that, I don't think doing a thesis
> on the hazards of game development, is going to fly. Do you? :)
> I am open to suggestions in this regard because I have *full*
> intentions of enrolling in an accredited program for my own personal
> advancement and nothing else.
I feel your pain here. I know plenty of people who could have
completed
PhDs. Some started and had to quit to get a job to support family.
Some
never started because they had to feed hungry mouths. That's a choice
you
have to make. My recommendation to you is if you have enough money,
go ahead and enroll in a an accredited program and split your time
between
game develpment and a PhD.
I started my game, Stellar Frontier, just before I started writing my
dissertation.
I was able to do both quite easily. Stellar Frontier was my break
from working
on research and research was my break from working on Stellar
Frontier.
I also know how it is to work on a game for many years. (4 and
counting). At
times it is like having a 100lb necklace.
> Further along, how about those institutions that give our honorary
> degrees to folks who *never* even either went to school there or
> stepped foot in a degree program. What about them? At least I did the
> work, accredited or not. In fact, I plan on contacting Princeton
> University (cause I have a contact there) to see if I could get into a
> program or some sort of recognition if they found my technology in my
> dissertation, worthy. Naturally, I don't particularly plan on upping
> and moving to NJ (though I have a pad in NYC) even if they did let me
> enrol, but, I'm sure I could get some good suggestions on how to
> proceed, before I enrol in a local school here in Fort Lauderdale.
I always wondered about those honorary degrees. I know Bill Cosby
has one, though I'm sure he doesn't call himself a Dr.
>
> Believe me, I am not doing this to piss people off, it just seems that
> way. Many years ago, how was I to know that this whole thing would
> come to this? Talk about hindsight. This is why I maintain that once
> it got out of hand, there was no turning back and yes, I regret saying
> that it was accredited when it wasn't but I did that for a specific
> reason, as I have already stated.
>
> I am torn in what to do and not do, further, I have a lawsuit pending
> because Huffman *refuses* to back the hell off me. Apart from that,
> removing the Ph.D. from my sig is one thing, feeling good about it is
> another. Besides, it would just be one more thing to attack me for and
> the detractors would have a field day. Case in point: yesterday, I was
> moving my Euroda mailbox around and forgot to update Agent for my sig
> file. Before you know it, one of them, Daktari (man of many aliases),
> was quick to stab at me for it. No doubt you saw the post in this same
> thread? Now *thats* what I'm talking about. I also need justification
> (as you aptly put it that anyone not of an accredited program, should
> not be refered to as Dr.) for removing those initials because right
> now, I just *don't* see anything other than people's isolated
> opinions. Besides, people rarely call me Dr. and in fact, my employees
> could care less and lets not even talk about the fan base.
Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Seems like you're damned if
you do and damned if you don't.
>
> This is not an issue that has to be polled. All around us there are
> people in high places who end up in the same predicament. Saw
> somethingon Wired earlier this week, saw something in the NYT awhile
> back etc. But I *did* the work. In fact, I just saw something in the
> Monday edition of The Herald (www.broward.com) in which a bunch of
> students where suing a local college because they failed to tell said
> students that their physical fitness program lost its degree program
> accreditation! Imagine that.
>
> I don't know what to do but perhaps with the proper debate and
> dialogue, I will find a solution. It all boils down to public opinion
> and I think the world knows how I feel about that. I plan on
> contacting Dr Bear privately for advice and go from there. Eitherway,
> I will do whats best for *me* and whats *right*; and *not* whats best
> based on public opinion. I don't strive on public opinion and I can be
> a jackass all day about it and it won't change people's opinion of me.
> I will always, Ph.D. or not, be me, Derek Smart.
I agree. I think the best thing you could do would be to earn an
accredited PhD.
BTW,
I'll trade you a copy of Stellar Frontier for BC3000. Right now
during beta it's a free download at
http://synapse.stardock.com (Temporary SF Home)
http://www.stardock.com (Stardock Homepage)
Doug
=====================================================
<hend...@nichols.com> wrote:
<snip>
>One problem with this is that I gave up 4 years of a career to earn a PhD.
>My salary in 1995 was 1/6 of what I make now. Because of this, most
>PhDs feel like you gotta pay your dues similarly if you want to be called Dr.
>Not to mention that if it worked the way you are saying, then everybody with
>5 years of work experience in some industry should automatically be awarded
>a PhD. My boss is a great example, he has a MS Physics and 20 years of
>Aerospace industry experience, but he made his choice not to pursue a PhD
>and instead get a job and so he is not a Dr., but I, his subordinate, am.
This is understandable
>Another problem with this is that I spent 2 of those years travelling the world
>presenting my work in front of the worlds experts and defending it against
>their criticisms. I published 4 papers in Astrophysics Journals and defended
>my work formally against criticism from referees. The result is something you
>just can't achieve via a non-accredited school. The quality of a dissertation
>accepted by an accredited school is something you can't match with DL.
Indeed. You are correct. There are some things that you just can't
earn with DL. However, isn't it kinda like ordering a book from Amazon
as opposed to driving to Borders? How about, sending email to your
best friend, when you could simply handwrite it, stick it in an
envelope, march to the post office, stand in line, post it. I am not
demeaning the experience and real world hard work, I'm just trying to
wrap up the logic in my head. After all, I need to process, in my
mind, every permutation before I can accept and/or reach a reasonable
understanding or conclusion in said premise.
>I have no qualms with remote research. Toward the end of my grad studies,
>I worked mostly alone in my offfice or at home. In the beginning, however, I
>really knew nothing about the subject matter of my research and needed
>the pointers from my advisor to make sure I was going in the right direction.
>This is most likely the reason for residency requirements. It's the kind of thing
>that you have to have been there to realize how much you grow as a scholar
>and a scientist by going through an accredited PhD program and having an
>advisor who is a world expert in a field.
I agree
>I agree here. Though, for example, my research was purely theoretical,
>so I had no real requirements to be on campus other than what I mentioned
>above. In the field of neural networks, there is also a lot of heady theory.
>I would imagine that studying under the tutelage of an academic expert would
>really be necessary to fully understand the current state of ther art and to be
>able to formulate ground breaking research.
Again, I agree with you.
>BTW, there is a professor at UC Irvine in the Physics Dept. doing research in neural nets.
His name? Sounds like the kind of peer I'd like to know.
>I feel your pain here. I know plenty of people who could have completed
>PhDs. Some started and had to quit to get a job to support family. Some
>never started because they had to feed hungry mouths. That's a choice you
>have to make. My recommendation to you is if you have enough money,
>go ahead and enroll in a an accredited program and split your time between
>game develpment and a PhD.
Thats what I'm planning on doing and I have two appointments next week
with local schools. I couldn't do this before because, as you know, I
had the real-life stress of dealing with a failed product ('96) and
the tarnished rep. I watched as my life's work was trashed because the
game never worked (it was not completed) long enough to see it. Now,
everything has changed and I, for the past year since Interplay took
the leap of faith and 'let me do my thing', I can actually talk about
my game without whincing at the retorts. I have already, with the help
of a very capable team of modeler, artists, support developers,
musicions, testers etc, established the footing for a next gen title
that will truly take all the awe in what BC3K v2.0x does and simply
takes into the 'unbelievable' premise. It took a lot of hard work and
there was *no* way I could have walked away from that damage control
premise to go out and get an accredited degree.
>I started my game, Stellar Frontier, just before I started writing my dissertation.
>I was able to do both quite easily. Stellar Frontier was my break from working
>on research and research was my break from working on Stellar Frontier.
>I also know how it is to work on a game for many years. (4 and counting). At
>times it is like having a 100lb necklace.
heh, you didn't have the behemoth that is BC3K or you'd need a
fulltime shrink in order to stay sane enough to work and study :)
>I always wondered about those honorary degrees. I know Bill Cosby
>has one, though I'm sure he doesn't call himself a Dr.
Indeed
>Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Seems like you're damned if
>you do and damned if you don't.
....and thats the most difficult part for me.
>I agree. I think the best thing you could do would be to earn an
>accredited PhD.
I am working on it and it is now one of my primary goals.
>BTW,
>
>I'll trade you a copy of Stellar Frontier for BC3000. Right now
>during beta it's a free download at
You're on! I just sent BC3K v2.08 with TOC extensions off to GT for
production in the UK. I will send you a cd-rom burn of it (online
manual only) and once I get the boxed units from GT (in Europe), I'll
send you one as well. Please send me your details via email and I'll
burn and send it out to you today.
=======================================================
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:30:01 GMT, Douglas Hendrix
<hend...@nichols.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Seems like you're damned if
>you do and damned if you don't.
I'm already damned over this. So, what the heck. I've changed it in
lieu of your arguments. Is this one OK?
This too, I can deal with.
Have a nice weekend.
====================================================
**** THE END ****
Bill Huffman
Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...)
wrote:
> Heh. Somebody remind me never to mail Rev.
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:06:34 GMT, em...@bottom.com (Ed Bain) wrote:
>
> >
> >Included here is one of Derek Smart's final emails to me,
> >dated 9/03/99. It will be the only one I post.
Ed has truly done Mr. Smart a great favor. Prior to this post and the
truth that it forced Mr. Smart to admit to, he was still a PhD fraud.
Mr. Smart has finally been pulled (against his own will and fighting,
threatening and insulting all the way) out of his pit of PhD fraud and
into reality.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kevin Stewart
I was taught, (right, of course!), to do it your way if I'm contracting, ie:
Derek's lost this round!
and 'MY' way for possession, thus:
Dereks' lawsuit is a no show!
Ergo:
Dereks' lawsuit's a no show!
If Turabian, the APA, the MLA &/or Strunk & White disagree, I guess we all
know who's (*n o t* whos') right!
- the ghoti, 8~ )
foamy wrote in message <9b7cf$938...@srv4.reelwest.bc.ca>...
snipped
>>The question mark goes outside the quotes, since it isn't part of Dereks'
>>post.
I wrote that, actually.
> In order to indicate individual possession or authorship
> the apostrophe should have been placed as such:
Derek's
>
>
>>Just some trivia for some trivia. 8~ )
>
>
>Just some Windex to clean your house. <G>
>
>Jim
>
If a ghoti did windows, aquariums would be invisible!
Bill Huffman
dsm...@pobox.com wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:34:09 -0700, "PJL" <Do$feratu@email.m$n.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As for you, you flat out LIED here. I could care less what happens
to you.
> >Let's just say you reap what you sow.
>
> Thats fine by me. You've never lied in your life. So, let he who is
Mr. Smart, I believe that you've probably caste as many stones in this
flame war as everyone else combined.
BTW, congratulations on your new sig, welcome to the truth. (It really
isn't so bad is it?)
> Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
--
Bill Huffman
huf...@RIBOSPANTSaccess1.net (Remove the RIBO'S PANTS to email me.)
**Anthony**
Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:37D9AE08...@prodigy.net...
Jim Waggener
wrote:
I like revved. I consider him a friend. He is knowledgeable,
and contributes. Never heard a negative thing directed at
me by him....ever. Lets stick to issues of the ng.
JimW
Kevin Stewart
of publicizing an e-mail.
But in this case, it did some good. We now see that this dance ain't ending
soon and that Smart isn't (about his PhD, his standing with friends or
fiends, or the significance of the whole thing -- as well as Ed).
My vote goes to Ed for trying to get things in the open & speed up the
conclusion of this 'epicsode'. His 'turncoating' was more like Geo
Washington to Geo. 3, than Benny Arnold to his men/superiors, IM"h"O.
- the ghoti
Todd A Carter wrote in message <7rc2mp$plj$1...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>...
>What a tangled web we weave... I can't believe the amount of time and
>energy that people have spent on this issue.
snipped
Istvan
Jim Waggener wrote:
> I like revved. I consider him a friend. He is knowledgeable,
> and contributes. Never heard a negative thing directed at
> me by him....ever. Lets stick to issues of the ng.
How elaborate. As long as he contributes and stabs only
other people in the back, it is perfectly okay with you.
Anyway I'd watch my e-mails to this *friend*, if I were
you...
Isvan.
Jonathan Dalton
> forum? Your right to attempt to intimidate anyone who probed into your
> lies? To mask that as a right to privacy is quite a stretch. Derek
> Spinmaster, hard at work.
So -- what. I don't really care who or what DS does or has done. Just forget
the whole thing, leave him alone, he'll leave you alone, and ignore his
posts to the NG about the new BC update or whatever. Give us all a break.
jon
Erik Dahlbeck
expect ti to be very amusing... :-)
Istvan wrote:
> I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
> times did I have the chance to see a prick like
> Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
>
> First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
> Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
> a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
> of his personal e-mails.
>
> I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
> Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
> clear winner here:
>
> Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
> by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
>
> Derek Smart, I salute you!
>
> Istvan Albert
> http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
--
Erik "Lead-Head" Dahlbeck
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head
Echo-Romeo-India-Kilo Delta-Alpha-Hotel-Lima-Bravo-Echo-Charlie-Kilo
Erik Dahlbeck
Sorry, but I don't know what this is all about...
"DAKTARI!" wrote:
> Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:37e0616f...@news.mindspring.com...
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:04 -0500, Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Istvan Albert
> > >http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
> >
> > I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
> > right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
> >
> > I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
> > Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
> > franchise and my sanity.
>
> "sanity.....?"
> --
> DAKTARI!
> histo...@hotmail.com
Erik Dahlbeck
Waver wrote:
> thats weird, since revved was very upset when someone posted his real e-mail
> and such on the flight sim group...
>
> waver
>
> \
Bob `MadBob' Lionel
for $14 then took it back because it was so awful?
Bob `MadBob' Lionel
Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:37e0616f...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:04 -0500, Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have seen many disgusting people in my life, but very few
> >times did I have the chance to see a prick like
> >Ed Bain <rev...@mindspring.com> in action.
> >
> >First by shrewd tactics and dishonest manner he earns
> >Derek Smart's trust by viciously taking his side, then
> >a week later he stabs him right in the back by posting all
> >of his personal e-mails.
> >
> >I don't usually give a rat's ass about Derek Smart's or
> >Revved's opinion in this flamewar, but now I see one
> >clear winner here:
> >
> >Derek Smart, stabbed by so called friends, surrounded
> >by coward mad wolfs, is still standing.
> >
> >Derek Smart, I salute you!
> >
> >Istvan Albert
> >http://www.nd.edu/~ialbert/personal.htm
>
> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
>
> I just can't take much more. Three years. Three - frigging- years.
> Thank God I still have my *friends*, my fans, my employees, my
> franchise and my sanity.
>
> To thine own self, be true. I always am.
>
Rez Manzoori
> you...
So don't send any... Sheesh! It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist!
--
Rez Manzoori
(www.manzoori.demon.co.uk)
ICQ# 17763861
Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:37DAB8A1...@prodigy.net...
MastiCA
Usenet, he might actually have a playable and enjoyable game after all
these years. But the simple fact that he lacks the discipline to
actually *work on the game* can in part be recognized as the reason for
its incredible suckage. This is why Derek will forever be the horrible
failure that he is today. That and his enormous unjustifiable ego.
ScottZf wrote:
> Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:37db8d5e...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> <snipped 78 KB post>
>
> Wow!!!!
> How long did it take for you to type this?
> :-)
MastiCA
widely hated and ridiculed game? You must be very proud. At least you
did it "your way".
Aszurom
Dobbs? You need more slack.
Ed Bain wrote:
> On 10 Sep 1999 22:04:04 GMT,
> in msg <7rbv8k$n...@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>,
> ga...@netcom.com (Gary Hladik) said :
>
> >dsm...@pobox.com (Derek Smart) writes:
> >
> >I looked up "subgenius" at www.m-w.com, but the closest I could come
> >was "subgenus." From what I know of Latin, though, it would seem that
> >nearly all of us are "subgeniuses" (subgenii?). :-)
> >
> >Gary
>
> hehe.. Here you go. Oh, and take a lunch.. :)
>
> http://www.subgenius.com
> --
> * rrevved at mindspring dot com
> * unit.26 s.p.u.t.u.m.
> * http://www.cabal.net
Bill Lambrukos
conclusion of this 'epicsode'. His 'turncoating' was more like Geo
Washington to Geo. 3, than Benny Arnold to his men/superiors, IM"h"O.<<
I just wonder how many self-righteous folks attacking Ed (and "saluting"
Derwood ?!?!?!) would act exactly as Ed did if it was they that were
misled, lied to, allowed to defend the liar, and then hung out to dry when
the truth was brought out ! I'm certain most would exclaim loudly, "not I
! ", but I wonder how much truth there would be in that.
Bill
Ed Bain
in msg <37DB13A4...@neo.rr.com>,
Aszurom <asz...@neo.rr.com> said :
>Oh, come now... you are uneducated to the truth of the preachings of Bob
>Dobbs? You need more slack.
>
I am slack itself... ;)
PRABOB
Bill Huffman
"Rez Manzoori" <R...@NOSPAM.Manzoori.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
> So what exactly is a 'PhD (non-accredited)' ?
There are many examples. Here's a description of one notorious degree
mill from Dr. John Bear's book.
"Sussex College of Technology, Sussex, England. Perhaps the oldest of
Britian's degree mills, Sussex is run by "Dr." Bruce Copen from his
home, south of London. At the same address, but with different catalogs
are the Brantridge Forest School and the University of the Science of
Man. Each offer "earned" degrees for which a few correspondence are
required, and "extension awards" which are the same degrees and
diplomas for no work at all. Honorary Doctorates are offered free, but
there is a $100 engraving charge. "Professor Emeritas"[sic] status
costs another $100. One flyer admits Sussex is not "accrediated" [sic]
but goes on to say that "No student who has taken our courses and
awards have to date had problems." This statement would not be accepted
by, among many others, a former high-level state official in Colorado
who lost his job when the source of his Doctorate was discovered.
Sussex continues to advertise extensively in newspapers and magazines
in the U.S. and worldwide. In 1988, a new British law came into effect,
forbidding such "schools" to accept students who enrolled after May
1st. Sussex's solution to this minor annoyance was to offer to back-
date all applications to April 30th, 1988 - a creative response that
British law apparantly hasn't caught up with yet."
Phil Trevorrow
accredited? Hell no. I mean what the hell's the big deal here? If you
like his work, play his games. If not get a life and don't buy any more
titles from him. All you freakin people who have nothing better to do
than make this man's life a living hell should be lined up and put out
of your misery. Who gives a rat's ass wether his degree is from Harvard
or K-Mart's blue light diploma cart? I certainly don't care. What I care
about is if the games fun to play or not. You pathetic people need to
get a life or better yet, start your own cult somewhere out in the
desert. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. No one is
perfect. No one!
Krud
PJL <"do$feratu"@m$n.com> wrote in message
<7rbnrm$2tm$1...@phxtst22.phx1.aro.allied.com>...
>>
>
>Goodnight everybody, thanks for playing
>in the longest flamewar of the millennium!
>God Bless! Drive safe!
I thought it was pretty good, but it got a little boring after a while.
What a great ending though, eh? They are obviously planning a sequel.
I hope they do a better job of casting for the sequel. I thought some
of the acting really sucked. And I would like to see more sex. There
was lots of violence but not enough sex. Maybe Derek could have an
affair with Bill's sister or something like that. That would be good.
-Krud
Krud
>BTW, congratulations on your new sig, welcome to the truth. (It really
>isn't so bad is it?)
>
>> Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
What exactly does it mean? Is it like almost pregnant, or not quite
dead yet? Heh, heh, I'm having a vision of a Monty Python
movie..........
"Bring out your PhD's!"
"Here's one!"
"But I'm not quite a PhD yet"
"THWACK!"
"There you go, now he's a PhD."
-Krud
St Claus of Nirfur
says...
> Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What do you mean by that?
I have a PhD in nuclear physics, except I'm not accredited with it yet.
Same with molecular biology.
Yeah, I'm one smart d00d.
--
St Claus of Nirfur
a.a atheist #1116
ScottZf
Kevin Stewart
Well, I never! At least not while asleep!
Hey, Phil! If you're going to lurk for so brief a time before joining in, it
helps not to blink! The idea of ability without accredited rubber stamp,
(except in Politics & Religion) went out with the baby! If you don't rent a
seat, fine. But you'd better pay to read or test out and you'd damn well
better be doing it from a Government-approved group of sanctioning
experts-ok'd institution! (If nothing else, "accreditation" is so much
easier to say!).
Derek didn't, so how can he know shit about AI, programming or games?
"Experience", you say? What's that? "Real world success."?
Look, wise guy. If you were dumb, that'd be one thing. But I don't think you
are, which means you're being flippant. And I'm trying to be serious here.
So, just keep acting like accreditation isn't the sign of certainty serious
folks know it is. (Gov't approved accreditation comissions! Gov't approved!
That should tell you something!). Pretend major industries & companies
within many industries, were founded by underachievers who didn't/don't have
an *accredited* Bachelors'. (Yeah, right!).
We know better!
- the ghoti, ACCREDITED B.A.(S.S.) & professional tele-marketer,
dishwasher, tutor & store clerk.
So there!!! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Phil Trevorrow wrote in message <37DB85C9...@bicnet.net>...
> This whole thing is absurd. Does it really matter if his degree is
>accredited? Hell no. I mean what the hell's the big deal here? If you
>like his work, play his games. If not get a life and don't buy any more
>titles from him.
[Snipped]
>Who gives a rat's ass wether his degree is from Harvard or K-Mart's blue
light >diploma cart?
[GASP!!!]
>I certainly don't care. What I care about is if the games fun to play or
not.
You go by relevance? Radical!
>You pathetic people need to get a life or better yet, start your own cult
>somewhere out in the desert. Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone. No >one is perfect. No one!
I never claimed I was. I am, however, inerant.
PJL
Derek Smart wrote in message <37de60b5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:34:09 -0700, "PJL" <Do$feratu@email.m$n.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>As for you, you flat out LIED here. I could care less what happens to
you.
>>Let's just say you reap what you sow.
>
>Thats fine by me. You've never lied in your life. So, let he who is
>without fault, caste the first stone.
The truth shall set you free.
Enjoy your new freedom.
\\\\\\\\\\\
Pat Lundrigan
///////////
A.J. Roberts
> wrote:
>
> >> I am weary. I am tired. And if this is what I get for upholding my
> >> right to privacy and in defense of my actions. So be it.
> >
> >forum? Your right to attempt to intimidate anyone who probed into your
> >lies? To mask that as a right to privacy is quite a stretch. Derek
> >Spinmaster, hard at work.
>
> reasonable. Seeing that someone cross-posted this thread over to
> flight-sim, I have no choice.
Well, I'm certainly glad that you were forced to be reasonable. I sure
would hate for this to become unreasonable- that could get ugly! Actually,
I think that I may have made a mistake in the logic underlying my first
post. While you've summoned the right to privacy in defense of your PhD
more than once, I don't think that that's what you were referring to this
time. I believe you were referring to the right to not have email that you
transmitted in confidence posted in a public forum. This renders my initial
posting somewhat invalid. I'm sorry for the confusion.
I also have to admit that I'm not sure how I feel about the posting of
private email that had been guaranteed privacy. It looked to me like you
were (prior to Ed's posting of email) continuing to spin, making it sound
like Dr. Bear would somehow help you to legitimize your Phd. I think you
were going to try to go down the path of "Well, it wasn't accreditied, but I
still worked hard and they really are a good school trying to do the right
thing to advance the concept of distance learning." Now that the magic
words "diploma mill" have been uttered (by you, ironically enough), you
can't really go much further than "I sent them a check for $29.95 and a self
addressed envelope. Oh yeah, and a thesis too."
If I had known what Ed knew, I would have been hardpressed to watch you
continue to spin and not say or do anything. It would have been difficult,
but I don't think that I would have posted any emails that I had guaranteed
would remain private. Any other emails would have hit the newsgroup in
seconds, though, if I saw you continuing to dissemble. While posting your
"sensitive" email may have been wrong, I believe that you did your best to
push Ed in to it.
Oh yeah, and I do believe that that email "contributed" something to the
online game... the magic phrase "diploma mill." Thus my "game over" post.
There is not a shred of potential legitimacy left for your Phd. Thank you
for placing "non-accredited" by your signature.
> It is very *easy* to lambast, character assasinate, harrass, insult,
> stab and do all those things to another, from behind the safety of
> this medium.
That's interesting. I would describe what you have attempted to do to Bill
Huffman as exactly this. After 3 years, he was right. All of your
bluffing, denials, and threats came to nothing. Maybe if you'd been a more
careful liar, things would have turned out better for you. As it is, you've
attacked the character of an awful lot of people, while it turns out that
your character was to blame.
> While it is very hard to refute statements made by some,
> it is *not* very hard to discard, disregard, scoff at and/or simply,
> ignore, crap from incessant and notorious assholes. There is no
> defense against online assholes, like you for instance, one just has
> to live with them.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you dumb down this passagefor
me? I got lost in one of it's many twists, and the last sentence seems to
contradict the first.
I've never been called anything like that online before. I feel kind of
funny inside!
> This is the post that sparked Ed's actions. In it, I called him
> dishonest. He further proved it by posting private and confidential
> email in trying to justify it. I will first start by posting the email
> he posted, my pre-warning email and finally, the post that sparked it.
To say that there was just one post that prompted Ed's actions seems wrong
to me. There were many, and I read them all with great curiosity. He
referenced your accusations of his dishonesty and your continued lies across
several threads in his decision to post.
> So, without further ado, wrap your brain around this
Hope you don't mind if I snip that. Already read it, within moments of it's
reaching my newsreader.
>and the next
> retort I get from you, you'll hear the thud as you hit the far wall of
> my kill file. The *plonk* doesn't even begin to describe it.
Does that make it a mega-plonk? I might almost be excited to join the
plonked club (I hear they throw a great Christmas party!).
>From that
> point on, you can post anything you want, only you and your
> girlfriends, will get to read and agree acknowledge it, and the
> sensible majority will draw their own conclusions.
No girlfriends for me, thanks. My wife simply wouldn't tolerate it!
> Without further ado....
>
<snip here the size of Wisconsin>
Jan Knutar
>Derek Smart has posted many personal email messages that he received
>with out getting consent from the author. Derek has lied for 3 years
>about his Ph.D.
Now, let me get this right...
There are 2 kinds of Ph.Ds
Non-Accredited and Accredited.
I have never seen anyone define their Ph.D more precise than just
Ph.D. Until recently when Derek Smart changed his sig to indicate wich
kind of the two possible Ph.Ds he had.
So, Derek Smart has a Ph.D, a non-accredited Ph.D.
I don't care wether it's accredited or not accredited, it wont make
his game better or worse jus because of that. What about Derek lying ?
Who cares ? Even presidents lie...
As long as Derek isn't lying about his game I don't care. If he'd say
that you can drive around in a city with a formula 1 car, and put that
claim on the box for Bc3kad, then I would mind it.
Hmmm... Why's this thread x-posted to flight-sim ? Derek, have you
given the Interceptors wings ? Implemented a special atmospherical
flight model ?
-JK
Jan Knutar
<hard...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> The problem with posting email is that it's not 'proof' of
>anything. There is no verification possible of a bunch of ASCII text.
What about PGP signed emails ?
-JK
Jan Knutar
<noneyo...@mindpsring.com> wrote:
>"sanity.....?"
Perhaps you've heard of it. It's what you lack.
-JK
Kevin Stewart
accreditation-ok'd seat rental/book mark! Putting ability before ANY
quick-fix, "Ought, therefore is." assumed-to-be-indicative-of-[????]
high-cost wall paper!
'Clash of the Titans' returns & reality is slowly winning!
Gotta love it!
- the ghoti, once hooked on form, now prefers substance.
Jan Knutar wrote in message <37db9e76...@news.nic.fi>...
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:06:15 -0400, x <xan...@nac.net> wrote:
snipped
>So, Derek Smart has a Ph.D, a non-accredited Ph.D.
>I don't care wether it's accredited or not accredited, it wont make
>his game better or worse jus because of that. What about Derek lying ?
>Who cares ? Even presidents lie...
>
>As long as Derek isn't lying about his game I don't care. If he'd say
>that you can drive around in a city with a formula 1 car, and put that
>claim on the box for Bc3kad, then I would mind it.
snipped
Nai-Chi Lee
Krud <au...@home.com> wrote:
>>> Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)
>
>What exactly does it mean? Is it like almost pregnant, or not quite
>dead yet?
It has the same meaning as "genuine replica", "faux pearl" and "simulated
diamond". Hey, who says it is a complete waste of time watching the
Home Shopping Channel?
>Heh, heh, I'm having a vision of a Monty Python
>movie..........
>
>"Bring out your PhD's!"
>"Here's one!"
>"But I'm not quite a PhD yet"
>"THWACK!"
>"There you go, now he's a PhD."
>
>-Krud
Oh I've got it! PhD stands for "Plumped him Dead", yes?
You have a sick sense of humor, Krud. ;-)
--
Nai-Chi
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:04:07 -0500, "ScottZf" <sco...@dwave.net>
wrote:
>
>Phil Trevorrow <phil...@bicnet.net> wrote in message
>news:37DB85C9...@bicnet.net...
>> This whole thing is absurd. Does it really matter if his degree is
>> accredited? Hell no. I mean what the hell's the big deal here? If you
>> like his work, play his games. If not get a life and don't buy any more
>> titles from him. All you freakin people who have nothing better to do
>> than make this man's life a living hell should be lined up and put out
>> of your misery. Who gives a rat's ass wether his degree is from Harvard
>> or K-Mart's blue light diploma cart? I certainly don't care. What I care
>> about is if the games fun to play or not. You pathetic people need to
>> get a life or better yet, start your own cult somewhere out in the
>> desert. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. No one is
>> perfect. No one!
>>
>Me too.
>
Quatoria
--
"It's time for you to go home to your wives and children..it's time for me to be dead for a while, and then live again...
Hello, Farewell."
-Billy Pilgrim, Slaughterhouse Five
"Oh Benson, dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."
-Evil, Time Bandits
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
marketing campaign?
Niko Wellingk
Not I. Most of us actually have something else to
do with their lives. The amusement factor of this
whole case has plummeted. People, get on with your
lives, there must be something better to do than
argue about one's Ph.D.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Niko Wellingk
> Hahaha LOL... what "franchise" is that exactly? A useles flop of a
> widely hated and ridiculed game? You must be very proud. At least you
> did it "your way".
And exactly how many games did you get published, btw?
If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't waste your
(and mine) time talking about it.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Eric Harding
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:06:15 -0400, x <xan...@nac.net> wrote:
>
>>with out getting consent from the author. Derek has lied for 3 years
>>about his Ph.D.
>
>Now, let me get this right...
>
>There are 2 kinds of Ph.Ds
>
>Non-Accredited and Accredited.
>
>I have never seen anyone define their Ph.D more precise than just
>Ph.D. Until recently when Derek Smart changed his sig to indicate wich
>kind of the two possible Ph.Ds he had.
>
>
>I don't care wether it's accredited or not accredited, it wont make
>his game better or worse jus because of that. What about Derek lying ?
>Who cares ? Even presidents lie...
>
>As long as Derek isn't lying about his game I don't care. If he'd say
>that you can drive around in a city with a formula 1 car, and put that
>claim on the box for Bc3kad, then I would mind it.
He did lie about his game. He said it would be the last game you'd desire,
and then it turned out ot basically be Tradewars 2000.
Eric
Kathryn Head
Kevin Stewart <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote in message
news:rtl4j5...@corp.supernews.com...
> WWWWEEEELLLLLLLL!!!
>
> I was taught, (right, of course!), to do it your way if I'm contracting,
ie:
>
> Derek's lost this round!
>
> and 'MY' way for possession, thus:
>
> Dereks' lawsuit is a no show!
>
Sorry ... for an INDIVIDUAL'S possession the apostrophe does, in fact, go
BEFORE the 's' ... it is apparent that many teachers are incorrectly telling
their students to plural/possessive instead of singular/possessive these
days. I recently had to correct my nephew for the same thing.
Unless, of course, you're running around cloning Derek. In that case you
could be correct--but I sincerely doubt it.