PP Thanks. Just wanted to make sure if we should wait or not.

14:19 -- if your letter came from the school, I bet that happened independent of the Level IV process. (Seems awfully quick for the appeals cte to have let your school know, and for them to get a letter out). I'd bet good cash that resulted from the initial "ineligible" decision, and not from an ineligibility on appeal...

Anonymous wrote:But I made no assertion of wrongdoing by anyone.
If we say some lawyers are shysters - have we defamed lawyers? (well, maybe that isn't possible).
If we say, some politicans may take bribes, have we defamed politicians?

So in other words, do your comments rise to the level of libel?

Dunno... guess that will be up to the jury! (for a civil trial, a simple majority is all that needed--not a unanimous jury--right?)

PP: Level 3 is independent of the Level IV appeals (though one would expect all L-IV students would have been eligible for L-III

if you are accepted into level III services, does it mean that your appeal for level IV got rejected?

Or maybe it's a split personality.

That's 13:55 and 13:59, respectively.

Looks like we've smoked out two trolls, one contrite (12:55) and one still crazy (12:59).

Even without reporting the troll to our psychs, we may have acheived our goal of hushing her up so that we can return to our civil discourse and support. I'm looking forward to the folks here reporting their successes on appeal (and including the scores of course to inform future generations).

I'm giving him a heads up to be prepared for the subpoena, etc. associated with the "action" the trolls (parents of rejected children) are intent on pursuing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey troll, next time you feel compelled to defame the private psychologists that we have named on this board, try a quick Google search instead: Cyber Libel on Message Boards.

no one accused anyone of taking bribes or cting unethically. There are many possible explanations for why a tester might consistently give scores higher than the CogAT/GBRS would suggest. No factual assertion of any wrongdoing was made by anyone.

What fun to see our resident troll trying to back peddle.

This is true. I did not think anyone was going to get so worked up over my comments. I do apologize if anyone in the profession was offended.
But I made no assertion of wrongdoing by anyone.
If we say some lawyers are shysters - have we defamed lawyers? (well, maybe that isn't possible).
If we say, some politicans may take bribes, have we defamed politicians?
Good luck to all you appealers - I have learned you are a serious and touchy lot. My bad.

13:50 so what.

Anonymous wrote:I've let Jeff know what you are doing.

Is Jeff your daddy or lawyer?

13:28 again. 13:35 I'm with you now. Originally thought that 13:12 was troll trolling, but understand now what was meant.

I've let Jeff know what you are doing.