Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics - Forums at Psych Central



advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2019, 06:08 AM #1
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
Nechayev has no updates.
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31

2 hugs
given
Default Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

I recently had the pleasure of appealing a grade. The course was Introduction to Ethics. I attempted the course by portfolio, but did not receive the credits. The professor was unresponsive, so I appealed to the dean. I did not receive credits, for reasons my appeal describes.



Below is what I sent to the professior

"My learning is structured in regards to fundamental truth. In every course I have ever taken I have taken the position of negation, because never has any professor shown that any subject material has or approaches having an ontological relation to truth. Though I have already completed a class in multivariate calculus, I have not had any professor explain why I should trust arithmetic or to justify the fundamental truth claim that arithmetic has relation to truth. Until such time that a plausible reason for believing in addition is given, I am suspicious of it. I know for certain that my teachers professors have lied to me by misconstruing the nature of addition to me through my education. Yet, addition has at least the merit of being a useful fiction – if nothing else. Ethics does not have that merit. Kant, therefore, has as much merit in the field of ethics as the ramblings of a schizophrenic. Certainly, Kant does some interesting dialectic and analytic tricks, but they are tricks on par with a circus performer – admirable as a feat, but merely amusing. William James would likely agree, considering that his pragmatic philosophy is an intently departure from such tricks. I have reason to learn Kant’s ethical philosophy just as much a parlor trick, because both a common parlor trick and his philosophy speak equally to ethical reality (in other words, not much at all, if at all.) In a word, ethics is simply nonsense and I would have just as much to gain from it as from learning the taxonomies of flora and fauna of a fictional world – because it is all nonsense. This applies to all the ethical philosophers which would be covered in such a course. Nietzsche notes the disintegrating nature of philosophy which does not raise up or ennoble man and so cannot bring health, but philosophy can only make the sick sicker (Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, p.1) These are philosophies of sickness. From Aristotle to Joyce, there is sickness. The analytics of the west, having lost any notion of synthesis, no longer has the capacity for intellectual health. Even here I am giving these ethical systems too much credit by portraying them as ethically neutral. Rather, I think that every single ethical system that would be presented would be unethical in application for they have the singular use of justifying (which none has the ontological capacity for, none have the potential for justification) immoral action, especially atrocity. The most honest and greatest ethical philosopher is Sergey Nechayev, for his philosophy is the logical end to all humanist reason and enlightenment thought, the end to all the ethical philosophies so taught in the universities, the conclusion to the ethical matter, and the last evangelion. The evangelion of the secular ecclesia, the state, which places the highest good in the nullification of the war with all against all, is the nullification of all fundamental truth claims; thus, the state religion, exemplified by the democratism U.S. is the evangelion of the enlightenment which must fall to this last evangelion. No two moral laws may coexist, one must always swallow the other. Soon “blood and instinct will regain their right against the power of money and intellect.” (Spengler, Decline of the West) In short, all these ethical systems must result only in “terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.” This necessarily follows from the nesting metaethics of it all. I still await to hear the justification, the epistemological access, by which it becomes possible to apply a property of wrongness to the holocaust, any other genocide, or any other action. None have ever provided an answer. The ethical philosophers in this course do not have the capacity for providing an answer. Yet, I have the answer, and this answer is a fundamental truth claim. This answer solves and disproves dearest Nechayev, but also against the foundations of modern, western civilization. And so I am silent and watching Leviathan, that Mesopotamian incarnation of chaos whose mate was slaughtered so that they would not breed and so destroy the physical cosmos, as he lurks on the horizon. We are feeding him and soon he will swallow us. For this reason, the golden tongue St. John, so long said that such would “bring hell before it’s time.” At that time, these problems will have resolved themselves by hell, but all the same I am silent. It remains, that the study of these philosophers only has value in pointing out what I have hear said and everything else about them meaningless. I have retained the essentials and have reason only to discard the rest.

I have never completed a ‘learning outcome’ which did not have recourse to truth, but I have demanded truth against the ‘learning outcomes.’ Thus, when the course outcome is as one was recently, requiring the learning of untruth, I must only assert truth in its stead. Thus, in my portfolio for “Research in Experimental Psychology, it is asked that I explain why the scientific thinking used in psychological research is better than common sense as a means of acquiring knowledge about behavior and so I explain why it is necessarily the opposite and that this requirement is nonsensical. For such, I have been expelled (or indefinitely suspended) from several schools from primary to college. For this reason I am choosing to attempt to portfolio in this class rather than taking it. I am not aware of what the Saylor Credit Transfer entails, but if it involves any kind of standardized exam I would decline. I would decline because it is such a stress to have to judge the educational and reasoning level of the exam writers and then mark questions by that assumption. If I assume they are at my level, I will get bad marks for selecting that which is true. If I assume they are at less than my level, I must select the many common myths, propaganda, and fraudulent interpretations that parade around as fact – A fact may be either true or false (As Nietzsche says, “Against that positivism which stops before phenomenon saying ‘There is only fact’...) A standardized test is usually filled to the brim with requirements to accept false facts as true and thus each question requires the suspension of morality. These exams – they are an evil thing. I prefer the examination methods common to my highschool and first college – thesis and oral defense. If on a standardized test am I to accept that geocentrism had anything to do with lifting mankind to the center of the universe? Almost all standardized tests on history or astronomy would require this, but this acceptance would be the acceptance of enlightenment propaganda and also easily proven falsehood. Geocentrism was a testament to the baseness of mankind, not it's exaltation. Whilst claiming to move from a false exaltation of humanity through asserting heliocentrism, the enlightenment made dishonest revisions to the cosmology existing besides geocentrism. The Copernican principle, as it is called, is misnamed by this propaganda to reference a shift in cosmology that never happened. Indeed, the Copernican principle follows just as much from the common geocentrism of the time as from the following heliocentrism. This may be seen by reading Dante, Aristotle, or Ptolemy. It isn't at all hidden, yet it is repeated by millions of school teachers, professors, and popular science 'educators.' Selecting the correct answer on a standardized test concerning this is decidedly immoral because I know otherwise. And if I were to include such a question on a test I'd hand out, knowing otherwise, I'd be as guilty as those who run re-education camps."




Below is my response to the Dean;

"I am not insightful. I have said nothing which is not plainly seen. That is the tradition of my people, to say what is seen, and nothing else. And what I have said is what was, is, and always will be. The ancients spoke of it ten thousands of years ago. The last humans speak of it now. And I don't believe that is the issue at all, I think you are acting as the dogmatic arm of the secular ecclesia. Academia is a primary propaganda center for the cult of Western Realism - which is absolutely equivalent to the Bolsheviks and the German Nazi Party, with the only superficial difference between methodology of leveling (Eugene Rose.) The psychological crimes of academia are worse than the genocides of the other two named parties - a fact which is publicly emerging due to the ongoing effects of the Behavioral Sink that the NIMH studied for decades. Is it not that I spoke to the nesting structure, which necessarily encompasses all that is nested. How therefore is it logically possible that " there is sound quality in your work, albeit inconsistent with the requirements for the course" - these two prongs are self contradictory.

Concerning the subject matter of the portfolio, it is easy to see that the content is intrinsic to the faith of more than 2 billion people currently living. The judeo-christian ethic, though as so defined here would be inclusive of Islam, finds foundation on the classic Genesis myth of the Tree of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This myth tells of the misdirection of human theosis in usurpation of God by eating of the fruit which grants kingship. Thus rather than being enthroned upon his maturity, Adam exalts himself by taking from the Tree of the King. And what is the quality of this kingship? The power to create for oneself ethical or systems - a metaethical capacity. I, therefore, do not make any radical claim in regard to my portfolio, but a nearly universal ethical stance. The professor, however, appears taken aback by millenia old claims with a rather strong reaction to the claims made. His requirement of sources seems to stem from this ‘taken aback’ reaction - sadly, I do not give a sunday school lesson in my portfolio, but speak only of modern ethical thought. Yet, the indignation given by the mentor is of the same type as one who’d take the Genesis story as being merely about the effects of eating bad fruit and consider the thousands of years of theological tradition spanning several continents, religions, and peoples, as radical innovation based on the inculcated theology of a vacation bible school. Though, I do point out that Kant’s ethical philosophy, along the Nozak, Hume, Joyce, Mackie, Locke, can all be reduced to the most basic ethical reality that their ethical systems are the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil - necessarily spawning atrocities we have barely begun to imagine (though the Holocaust is a quick place to start, it is a mere drop in the bucket.) “The civil servant as a thing-in-itself raised up to be the judge over the civil servant as phenomena” (The Portable Nietzche, Walter Kaufmann, 532. (I am sure, that I do not need to explain to any subject expert which of the above mentioned philosophers is summed by Nietzsche in this single sentence.)) As one of the primary philosophers of the French Revolution, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, so straightforwardly explained; “Come to me, Lucifer, Satan, whoever you may be! Devil whom the faith of my fathers contrasted with God and the Church. I will act as spokesman for you and will demand nothing of you." (The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 433-434) What is it then, at the end of these ethical philosophies, regardless of their forms, but precisely that which is expounded by Sergey Nechayev who exalts the violent criminal as the highest man. Isn’t the Marquis de Sade, according to Jacque Lacan, the completion of the imperative philosophy of Kant, as shown through his magnum opus - the 120 Days of Sodom? Yes, the philosophical end of Kant is rape, torture, and pedophillia, as the highest good - and am I to accept these? Does not the Academy require the learning of ethical sadism? It is no wonder that the work of the academic is the the work of the bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat both the sadistic rapist and the judge over the sadistic rapist (voila, here is an introduction to ethics.) And to give merit to Hume is to give credit to Carl Panzram - and this is the conclusion necessitated by reality. We teach Locke and make the school shooter our new Christ-child - This accusation I lay at the feet of the schoolmasters. We feign ignorance while dancing around the Columbine funeral pyre.

For this reason Buttgeriet teaches;

“The person running amok doesn't always choose his target consciously. With his urge for spectacular publicity he is sometimes trying to correct an imbalance. Through the act of killing, he or she compensates their own lack of celebrity of importance. By the end of the twentieth century, man has come to feel that he no longer has to endure everything. No longer does he accept miseries and disasters with the stoicism of a cow standing in the rain. He has come to feel, that he deserves justice and a degree of consideration as an individual. Where in the past he was passive, modern man has become reactive, therefore even a person nauseated by life, the potential suicide, doesn't only think of a quiet escape through the backdoor. Cheated by life, this creature is trying to give a final signal, to give its life a posthumous meaning by its way of dying. The frustration about its own existence and its neglect by a callously progressive society manifests itself in this universal act of vengeance. The Amok-suicide seems to aim at all those who always ignored him. For once HE is making history he is standing in the limelight and finally people are interested in his biography. He escapes a "dead" life into a "living" death, knowing that, at least for a few days, he will have the almost undivided attention of the general public. This absurd hope is probably more authentic and genuine than his whole virtually non-existent life before. He, the "motiveless-mass-murderer" is the martyr of Postmodernism.” (Der Todesking 1989)

But, alas, the academy has an answer for this too, that naturalism (or whatever inane blathering is in style at the moment) has ‘proven’ that water is not wet (see The Abolition of Man or The Flight from Woman or any other 20th century critical text, it astonishes me how a citation is asked for something every single worthwhile write of the last several centuries have all said, should I provide a citation by random or include 200 pages of citation? Yet, it never fails that the academics are blind and unaware - higher education has the same effect as plague to the brain apparently. What other kind of person would look at a fist punching him in the face and deny that it has existence - this is only possible for the academic for the academic has no knowledge of existence - what has he except a sneer? This, at least, Joseph Campbell has the honesty to admit to in The Masks of God Vol. 1 - Primitive Mythology - but what a great example he is of the purported “neutrality” of academia, when indeed Campbell was an intellectual slave to the Vendanta sect of Vivekananda which undermines the entirety of his work - or is being the mouthpiece of a cult what it means to be an academic?) - simply by forced blindness the academic is worshiper and worshipee of Janus. Diderot becomes the means - what is not in the Encyclopedie is not at all. This bounding the criteria for fact excising phenomena. “Against that postivism which stops before phenomena saying, ‘There are only facts’ - I say no, it is precisely that there are no facts, only interpretations.” (Kaufman 458) Against those who worship fact, it is because they hate truth.

Now, note that I have included gaps with explanation, for any subject expert would recognize the significance of Janus and Diderot in reference to the totality of what I have written. Further, I’ve quoted Nietzsche on a philosopher and did not relate the name - the subject expert would know what philosopher in a glance. All that I have given has been similar, thus any subject expert could prove expertise by the mere recognition of what is. This recognition has not been had. Instead, my basic claims are simply cast off as too scary by their ‘eclectic’ nature which I have now further expounded, despite that nothing I have hear said departs from generic Abrahamic ethics that has existed since perhaps Sumerian times. Any departure from is recent and disgustingly progressive (progressivism being that delusion which does not understand that there is not any “limitless trending upwards and onwards for all time towards our presents ideals, but a single phenomenon of history, strictly limited and defined as to form and duration” (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West) - the academic of course, is the facilitator and catechizer of the secular ecclesia which affirms this dogma with great fervor.

In summation, the only reason why my Portfolio would not be accepted is either through a subject expert not having any expertise or through the implicit religious violence of the secular ecclesia which imposes the evangelion against the fictitious “war with all against all.” No two laws may coexist, one must swallow the other, thus the academy acts for the law of the secular ecclesia to force the swallowing of all fundamental truth claims contrary to the aim of the new gospel, the new evangelion!


See the charges I am laying against the decision? I am aware I'm asking for the boot of the tyrant, of which the Academy is nothing else, doing the work of Goebbels. This is an era of the eradication of individuals. A friend of mine once saw a man protest in Tienanmen square, watching a van pull up and grab him, thus eradicating this man from public consciousness forever, but he could not understand that this is the norm for the West, only we make use of other methods in tandem. How many entire subjects have disappeared universally from the internet this last few years? Now even photos of certain people are banned universally across social media - even as the masses externalize all knowledge into the internet, not having the capacity to retain the real. Yet, this has been the norm of the academy for far longer. For this reason Nietzsche said of the professor, "my natural enemy." Campbell and the Vedanta may be allowed, but only as it serves the secular ecclesia's war against fundamental truth claims. The Academy is primarily responsible for the shift in the Overton window - ever eroding the human away - for the human cannot exist in the system the academic wishes to build. I choose to think the unthinkable - that which the very existence of the Academy is to supress and censor. The academy must act as the handmaiden of nihilism, leveling those who might retain their humanity. Even now, this appeal process exists merely to grind at me. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady made the distinction between the human endowed with the spirit of God and the hominid which would best be replaced by the Golem (have you read God and Golem Inc by Norbert Wiener?.) The hominid, he continues, is just a waste of resources and should be made extinct - it is not a sin to exterminate them. He was referring to the gentiles, but the concept he refers to is universally known and applied everywhere - for this reason we see the abuse scandal in the Roman Church, and the endless, and ever more violent, pedophilia of the political and academic class. There must always be subordinated subhumans as a caste of society, "usable, abusable, in servitude." I am and always was merely the hominid.

So, I implore you, deny the appeal with the boot once again. I've always had the boot. Let me have it from the next level of appeal, because my venom will not be satisfied. Grind me away. Make me nothing. That is why you deny me credit."



Now, I have some questions;

What do you all think about the denial of my credits?

What do you think of the so-called "arguments" that I've made?

What do you think of my barking like a mad dog?

Am I evil? Should I receive the boot?

Why cannot I manage to grab a bachelor's degree?
Nechayev is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote

advertisement
Old 03-15-2019, 05:07 AM #2
divine1966's Avatar
divine1966 divine1966 is online now
Legendary
 
Member Since: Dec 2014
Location: US
Posts: 13,381
divine1966 divine1966 is online now
Legendary
divine1966's Avatar
divine1966 has no updates.
 
Member Since: Dec 2014
Location: US
Posts: 13,381 (SuperPoster!)

3 yr Member
446 hugs
given
PC PoohBah!
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

The reality is if you dont compete required work/pass required tests, its only expected that you wont pass a class. Thats just how it goes. Its no matter how you feel about the course or professor or education or ethics, if you dont meet requirements you dont get a credit.

Its the same with employment, if you dont do your job you dont get paid and eventually you get fired. It doesnt matter that you dislike your job or think task assigned to you is stupid, if you dont do your job you dont get paid and you dont get to keep the job.

Its quite simple. And I think dean was clear: whatever you wrote in your portfolio was interesting but you havent met class requirements

To answer your last question, its possible that you arent getting a degree because you arent completing course requirements
divine1966 is online now   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
"Thanks for this!" says:
Old 03-15-2019, 05:25 AM #3
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma loves all pigs. ALL. THE. PIGS.
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070 (SuperPoster!)

70 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

First of all, there is no way I can read that wall of words, and I don't think you can expect anybody to,

Secondly, as divine says, you need to fulfill all course requirements to get credit. Just because you think you know it, doesn't mean you get credit. We bust our asses for many years doing a lot of work to get our degrees. Why would it just be handed to you because you think you're entitled?

Go to class (online or in person), do the papers, do the assignments, do the exams. If you do them well, you will get credit.
piggy momma is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 07:43 AM #4
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
Nechayev has no updates.
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31

2 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

You are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piggy momma View Post
First of all, there is no way I can read that wall of words, and I don't think you can expect anybody to,
And how is a professor to know if criteria are met if he does not read and consider the work submitted to him? Is mastery just a tweet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piggy momma View Post
If you do them well, you will get credit.
I was on the Dean's List when I was kicked out of university for entirely nonacademic reasons. Seems like there's a problem other than my capacity to do well.

I have 160 credits. More than enough to graduate. Seems like I don't have a problem with 'doing well.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by piggy momma View Post
Why would it just be handed to you because you think you're entitled?
I don't think I am entitled. I have actual subject mastery - a taboo thought in the anti-human Academy. For instance, I'm published - peer review - through my thesis for this university. It's the exact same thesis from my last university. One gave me an A+ and published it, the other an F. Why is that the case if it's A -> B, (do well, get credit.)

I have completed 21 credits through the portfolio - almost my entire psychology major, just by claiming that I have the expertise, and I do. Am I also entitled for thinking I'm an expert at the 21 credits I've received? And the last few will be in soon - because I'm entitled? Or because I have subject mastery?
Nechayev is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 07:59 AM #5
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
Nechayev has no updates.
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31

2 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

Quote:
Originally Posted by divine1966 View Post
Its no matter how you feel about the course or professor or education or ethics, if you dont meet requirements you dont get a credit.
I have met the requirements. I know I have met the requirements and committed a grave sin by exceeding them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by divine1966 View Post
if you dont do your job you dont get paid and eventually you get fired. It doesnt matter that you dislike your job or think task assigned to you is stupid, if you dont do your job you dont get paid and you dont get to keep the job.
Except I've done my work exceedingly well. It reminds me of a colleague who was fired last year for "caring to much about work and doing too good of a job." That was the reason his boss gave me for firing him - and that's how it is working for the state where most of the workers are incompetent so that the competent ones can channel money into personal slush funds. A state job has nothing to do with doing your job, but staying on the right side of civil rights/HR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by divine1966 View Post
Its quite simple. And I think dean was clear: whatever you wrote in your portfolio was interesting but you havent met class requirements
The dean's statement is against reason and truth. It is like in my World History class where the teacher taught only Ancient Alien theory - registering a complaint had the university drop all my classes for the semester. Why? Are the "course requirements" mandating Ancient Aliens? Is the complaint reason to suspend me for a semester?
Quote:
Originally Posted by divine1966 View Post
To answer your last question, its possible that you arent getting a degree because you arent completing course requirements.
Again, no. I have excelled academically in everything I've done. I've always had a trouble with being suspended or expelled.

Is saying the textbooks are a racket reason to have the police pick me up, take me to a school counselor, and interrogate me about "we can't tell you what you did, but if you do it again you will be expelled."

Get your mind out of the false idealized world where things make sense. Then read what I've said.
Nechayev is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 12:46 PM #6
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma loves all pigs. ALL. THE. PIGS.
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070 (SuperPoster!)

70 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

Well, youre the one without a degree and have been kicked out of school numerous times so you keep doing what youre doing.
piggy momma is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
"Thanks for this!" says:
Old 03-15-2019, 12:57 PM #7
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31
Nechayev Nechayev is offline
Member
Nechayev has no updates.
 
Member Since: Mar 2019
Location: Interstice
Posts: 31

2 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

Quote:
Originally Posted by piggy momma View Post
Well, youre the one without a degree and have been kicked out of school numerous times so you keep doing what youre doing.
Possible trigger:


You've just got nothing to say, because you'd have to admit to the reality of the situation that all the pride you place in you scrap of paper actually stands for something. Arrogant adherence to the religion is the name of your game.

Possible trigger:
Nechayev is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 02:22 PM #8
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma loves all pigs. ALL. THE. PIGS.
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070 (SuperPoster!)

70 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

piggy momma is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 03:51 PM #9
divine1966's Avatar
divine1966 divine1966 is online now
Legendary
 
Member Since: Dec 2014
Location: US
Posts: 13,381
divine1966 divine1966 is online now
Legendary
divine1966's Avatar
divine1966 has no updates.
 
Member Since: Dec 2014
Location: US
Posts: 13,381 (SuperPoster!)

3 yr Member
446 hugs
given
PC PoohBah!
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

We cant possibly know that you were suspended or kicked out and what for as you never shared it. We cant possibly know what you dont share. If the reasons werent academic, why were you expelled? It sounds like 160 credits should be enough to get undergrad degree. Are those right credits? And have you completed senior project or thesis etc? If yes then you should be able to apply for a degree
divine1966 is online now   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
"Thanks for this!" says:
Old 03-15-2019, 08:32 PM #10
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070
piggy momma piggy momma is offline
Poohbah
piggy momma's Avatar
piggy momma loves all pigs. ALL. THE. PIGS.
 
Member Since: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,070 (SuperPoster!)

70 hugs
given
Default Re: Appeal to the Dean; Introduction to Ethics

Quote:
Again, no. I have excelled academically in everything I've done. I've always had a trouble with being suspended or expelled.
Someone who excels academically doesn't get suspended and expelled.
piggy momma is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® — Copyright © 2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.



 

advertisement

Psych Central Forums

Psych Central is the leading mental health website, overseen by mental health professionals since 1995.

 

Helplines and Lifelines

The material on this site is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified health care provider. .

Always consult your doctor or mental health professional before trying anything you read here.
Please read the full disclaimer.