🚀 go-pugleaf

Hey Derek,
Remember this little item.

It is where you admit that your Ph.d was from a Diploma Mill.....

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!"