Kent Hovind gets 10 years

Indeed someone has (cited) in addition to numerous people that just chimed in, and in addition to previous insinuations.

Now you created the ambiguity in the first place.

No, you did. You have steered the discussion into an endless loop of tiring obfuscation. Posters have derided Hovind for his "fake credentials" and you know full well what they mean. They are not refering to a fraudulent document but a valueless document. You have maneuvered to this place because ignoring the obvious intent and meaning and arguing against the straw man of a ultra-literal definition is your way of running away from your statements.

The accusation of a fake degree is where you chimed in making this point...
  • It is not "valid" in the academic sense. Accreditation is set up by academics (the board that approves schools are from various schools) and control the criteria.
After claiming Dr. Hovind's degree is not valid (implying it is a fake) you claim no one is saying it is fake.

You just love to put words in other people's mouths, Gene. If you're going to be ultra-literal, please acquaint yourself with the definitions of both "valid" and "fake". They are not antonyms, as you are hoping. And, no, what was being said is that no one had said anything about Hovind's doctorate using your definition of "fake". Our definition of fake does not mean the same as "illegal", as yours does.

You've repeatedly attacked the quality of Dr. Hovind's degree and the awarding institution to justify your baseless and libelous allegation that he's guilty of fraud by nondisclosure.

Wow! Strong legalistic condemnation from an illiterate. Perhaps someone should point out to this pedantic fool that, as Hovind has not been charged or tried for fraud by deception, that charge can be made leaving the question open until a verdict is rendered. That makes any allegation that Hovind misrepresented himself, of which there is solid evidence, neither baseless nor libelous. If it were libelous, Gene the Clueless could forward this thread to the PBU and Hovind so that they could seek legal remedy. Methinks he doth protest too much.

I've given you adequate time to make the case. The fact is you've miserably failed at it. You have demonstrated that you imagine you're above the law by accusing Dr. Hovind of a baseless charge in addition to an inability to even read law much less what you yourself write.

First two sentences: "I declare myself victor of this argument." Third sentence is not a sentence as I have come to know them. Perhaps Gene the Illiterate would do us the favor of an edit? Nah, why bother?

I thought it was amusing how some could 'turn on the critical thinking' when necessary yet 'turn it off' to sadistically enjoy the suffering of someone but in your case it seems you can't even turn it on.

Finally, Gene gets back to his first statement after his long, intentional derail. He believes that our celebration that a conman has been incarcerated is a shameful exhibition. He even pities poor Hovind as he's now suffering. Gene, that's the way the law is supposed to work. Do the crime; do the time. It's been pointed out to me that, if I ever want to meet someone who considers themself to be innocent, visit a prison as all the inmates will tell you they're innocent.

The USA is a country of laws, Gene. The justice system is stacked towards letting the guilty sometimes go free so as not to incarcerate innocents. You can bet your sweet bipee that, for the prosecution to have had such a lopsided victory against Hovind, the totality of the evidence against him must have been overwhelming.

As you point out, Hovind was not convicted of fraud by deception but you yourself have correctly pointed out how difficult it is to make that charge stick. Instead, like your other idol Capone, he was put away for the benefit of society using a more tangible crime, tax evasion. It didn't have to be so but he had been taunting the local and Federal authorities long enough that they could not ignore the ass.

So, we rejoice that this sociopath is no longer able to freely walk the country fleecing people with such a variety of ploys. Don't like it? Vote with your feet. Go to a country where religious figures can break the law with impunity and only have to pay a few ducats for their license. There are countries like that, y'know. Please do this and be quick about it. I, for one, have grown tired of your whining and self-righteous rants.
 
I actually agree with AgingYoung that the legality of his degree isn't relevant to his conviction on tax issues. Still, if the question is whether or not you have to actually commit legal fraud in order to be considered a fraud, my answer is "definitely not." Silvia Brown is one example that springs to mind. There are lots of others.

Considering this is a skeptics' website and not a legal banter board, can we at least all agree that Hovind is guilty of committing intellectual fraud? I hope we can, 'cus then we can all go on feeling good that he's got some time to think about what he says about cancer, AIDS, anti-environmentalism, evolution, 9-11, dinosaurs in the Bible, bar codes, Arabs [!]and homosexuals on his own for a while.

Legal issues aside, I'm just going to put it out there that Kent Hovind is at the very least a despicable creep...

a creep in the same sense as any 9-11 "scholar" who ignores and distorts real evidence of 9-11...a creep in the same sense as an AIDS denier...a creep in the same sense as the infamous Kevin Trudeau--all just for example. In actuality Hovind represents all of these disgusting scoundrels rolled into one super creep.

Agree or disagree?
 
Last edited:
And, yeah, what Slimething said (much better than I could, by the way). With all my authority I declare Slimething the winner of this argument!:p
 
I actually agree with AgingYoung that the legality of his degree isn't relevant to his conviction on tax issues.
I have been watching Gene being taken to the cleaners from the sidelines (because I have better things to do with my life than lower myself to his level by arguing with him continually). Since Gene is fond of quoting me in this business about "fake" degrees and such, let me just make it exceptionally clear for everyone (including Mr Dense Gene over there on the soapbox): By "FAKE" degree, I mean that while it may be technically legal (that is, lawyers will agree it's a genuine piece of foolscap paper with writing on it), in reality Hovind's "doctorate" is a cheap photocopy hacked up by some drip at Patriot University that wouldn't fool a five-year-old as to its true validity.

Put it this way, Gene: I can run up a number of "fake" Havard, UCLA and Cambridge university doctorate diplomas in half a day in Word, and print them out on good stock. It's perfectly "legal" for me to do so. But does that therefore entitle me to hold all those qualifications? Do I have the right to insist on the title of "Doctor"? Have I actually qualified as a genuine graduate from those institutions?

Hovind has done exactly this, and Patriot University simply saved him the trouble of turning on his computer to do the hack work.

So get this straight: Hovind is a LIAR. He LIED about his degree, and he LIED about his qualifications. It is indicative of his character that he continues to do so, even now that it is clear he is a fraud in this regard.


Still, if the question is whether or not you have to actually commit legal fraud in order to be considered a fraud, my answer is "definitely not." Silvia Brown is one example that springs to mind. There are lots of others.

Considering this is a skeptics' website and not a legal banter board, can we at least all agree that Hovind is guilty of committing intellectual fraud? I hope we can, 'cus then we can all go on feeling good that he's got some time to think about what he says about cancer, AIDS, anti-environmentalism, evolution, 9-11, dinosaurs in the Bible, bar codes, Arabs [!]and homosexuals on his own for a while.

Legal issues aside, I'm just going to put it out there that Kent Hovind is at the very least a despicable creep...

a creep in the same sense as any 9-11 "scholar" who ignores and distorts real evidence of 9-11...a creep in the same sense as an AIDS denier...a creep in the same sense as the infamous Kevin Trudeau--all just for example. In actuality Hovind represents all of these disgusting scoundrels rolled into one super creep.

Agree or disagree?
To all the above: That's the point Gene. Hovind is not just a one-subject LIAR. He's an across-the-board pants-on-fire LIAR.
 
How come such a fantasy doctorate is (technically) legal? I assume the laws are more liberal in that regard in the U.S., because using such a homemade degree for example in Germany is more than a misdemeanour, it's a felony, a criminal offence resulting in a hefty fine and/or up to one year in prison.
 
Posters have derided Hovind for his "fake credentials" and you know full well what they mean. They are not refering to a fraudulent document but a valueless document. You have maneuvered to this place because ignoring the obvious intent and meaning and arguing against the straw man of a ultra-literal definition is your way of running away from your statements.

Yes.

Finally, Gene gets back to his first statement after his long, intentional derail.

Yes, he trying really hard in avoiding answering questions and providing proof.

Wow Gene, tired of embrassing yourself yet? I have nothing really to add since Slimething explained it very well at the top of the page. But Gene feel free to finding those links and answering my questions in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2310127&postcount=315 . Your digressions don't let you off the hook. And feel free to provide the evidence Slimething asked for, again, on page 8.
 
Last edited:
Hello wahrheit,

Thanks for the advice. Sometimes I use the option at the bottom...
This thread has more than 100 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.
...when I'm replying and 'search this thread' option at the top to review. I usually search the thread when I'm not logged in to see everything posted that relates to a point I'm answering. That way even if I have someone on ignore I can see if they've managed to say anything relevant.

A problem with putting too much in a single post is that it confuses some people. If you're replying to multiple people they take something you've said to someone else to mean something you're saying to them. It's confusing to some people. Even if a response is to someone else with no mention of them they imagine you're talking to them.

Again, thanks for the advice.

Gene


AgingYoung, you can use the small button next to the Quote button if you want to reply to several posts in a row. Clicking on each of those

Multi-Quote [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/buttons/multiquote_off.gif[/qimg]

buttons will automagically quote all selected posts into your reply after clicking the normal Quote button on the last post you want to quote.
 
Liken,

The fact that Dr. Hovind was convicted of tax evasion isn't proof of intent in an allegation that he's guilty of fraud by nondisclosure by not including the term 'christian' when mentioning he has a degree in education. Additionally the good Doctor has no requirement to do so, except in the minds of people that look at specific law as a scrabble game where they can pick and choose the terms and rearrange them to suit their opinion.

Gene



I actually agree with AgingYoung that the legality of his degree isn't relevant to his conviction on tax issues. Still, if the question is whether or not you have to actually commit legal fraud in order to be considered a fraud, my answer is "definitely not." Silvia Brown is one example that springs to mind. There are lots of others.

Considering this is a skeptics' website and not a legal banter board, can we at least all agree that Hovind is guilty of committing intellectual fraud? I hope we can, 'cus then we can all go on feeling good that he's got some time to think about what he says about cancer, AIDS, anti-environmentalism, evolution, 9-11, dinosaurs in the Bible, bar codes, Arabs [!]and homosexuals on his own for a while.

Legal issues aside, I'm just going to put it out there that Kent Hovind is at the very least a despicable creep...

a creep in the same sense as any 9-11 "scholar" who ignores and distorts real evidence of 9-11...a creep in the same sense as an AIDS denier...a creep in the same sense as the infamous Kevin Trudeau--all just for example. In actuality Hovind represents all of these disgusting scoundrels rolled into one super creep.

Agree or disagree?
 
Wow, you completely missed the point of my post.

Since you don't seem to get what I, and others, are getting at I'll make it simple for you. Please answer this question if you can:

When does someone become a doctor?
A) when they get a a piece of paper that says "doctorate," or "Ph.D." on it
or
B) other (please define)

My answer is B, because my understanding of a doctorate matches a commonly used dictionary's definition of it. Doctorate: "one of the highest earned academic degrees conferred by a university" [bolding mine]. A doctor is somebody who EARNS one of the HIGHEST degrees from a UNIVERSITY.

What's yours?

On the same page, a doctorate of philosophy is: "the highest degree awarded by a graduate school, usually to a person who has completed at least three years of graduate study and a dissertation approved by a board of professors." [bolding mine]

Agree or disagree? I, for one, don't care about the law so much. Spell it out for me in your own words. What is a university? What is a dissertation? How is Hovind a doctor according to your own understanding of the word?
 
Last edited:
Ok, on to the legal round:

Question Two:
Patriot Bible University is legally authorized to issue degrees in the following disciplines:

A) religious fields of study
B) education
C) A and B
D) A and and B can be thought of as the same as the terms can be used interchangeably; i.e. "a pastor with a religious degree who 'educates' people about religious matters can be thought of as a teacher, therefore the degree he earns in Biblical studies can also be considered a 'degree in education' upon completion"

Hovind answers D (or thereabouts). I answer A.

Gene answers...
 
Last edited:
Liken,

Wow, you completely missed the point of my post.

Thanks for keeping it simple for me but that wasn't necessary. You're rhetorical question at the end of the post...
  • Agree or disagree?
...pointed directly to the topic sentence which is your point:

  • Legal issues aside, I'm just going to put it out there that Kent Hovind is at the very least a despicable creep...

That was your point. Thanks for trying to keep it simple by making another point yet I in no way missed your point.

Gene
 
That is the same Glen Stoll that claims to be a lawyer because he just decided to be one. He decided to forego the going to law school nonsense, oh, and passig the bar exam. He says he is a lawyer --- just because!

More on Stoll:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212422_corpsole17.html
From that story "Stevens was arrested at the compound during a federal raid in August 1993 and was released nearly a month later after refusing to sign documents for his release. Both he and Stoll have been arrested for driving unregistered vehicles sporting Embassy of Heaven license plates."

Oh the irony. Hovind, a man who claims to be an expert on science, took his tax advice from a man, Glenn Stoll, who claims to be a law expert.

Seems like justice that Hovind would follow the advice of a man parading around with a false sense of intellectual authority then wind up in prison.
 
My first point is that he's a creep and liar. My second point is that he's not a doctor in the sense that he hasn't earned that title... Those are my main contentions from the beginning.

A third, less important matter is whether or not he can call himself a doctor without being prosecuted. I don't care so much for engaging in this argument because it's clear that he's a fraud in spite of the legal verdict. So far, however, this is the ONLY point you have responded to. That's what I mean by "you missed my point."
 
Last edited:
Liken,



Thanks for keeping it simple for me but that wasn't necessary. You're rhetorical question at the end of the post...
  • Agree or disagree?
...pointed directly to the topic sentence which is your point:

  • Legal issues aside, I'm just going to put it out there that Kent Hovind is at the very least a despicable creep...

That was your point. Thanks for trying to keep it simple by making another point yet I in no way missed your point.

Gene

You still evaded the questions. You have dragged this thread on by playing semantics and not replying to even the simplest questions. Go away now and work on a perpetual motion machine that you want a proctol for. Good luck with that.
 
Wow...just wow...

Qgellar's link to the perpetual motion thread makes me realize why I lurk more than contribute. Just to think I wasted at least an hour making my past few posts thinking that that Gene was a reasonable person.

On the other hand I solved the PPM testing protocol conundrum in a matter of seconds!!!
1) build PP machine
2) activate machine
3) collect excess energy produced
4) collect $1,000,000

Hope that helps. My brain hurts.
 
Ok so lets see if i got this right...It rained for 40 days(Genesis 7:17) the water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days(including the 40 days and nights of rain)(genesis 7:24) and after the 150 the water receded steadily from the earth.(Genesis 8:3). So where is the contradiction I don't get it.

Okay.
Where did all that water come from and where did it go?
To cover the earth we need 30,000 feet of water
Anyway
The bible story was ripped off the Epic of Gilgamesh...
 
Okay.
Where did all that water come from and where did it go?
To cover the earth we need 30,000 feet of water
Anyway
The bible story was ripped off the Epic of Gilgamesh...

Most of the old testment was taken from previous myth and legend, not just Gilgamesh.
 
Wow, you completely missed the point of my post.

You mentioned the point (singular). Other points aside I got your main point. Your point of ...
  • Legal issues aside..
Reinforces that preception. Then you follow all that with an attempt to discuss 'legal issues'. It is noteworthy that you couch your opinion of law in a multiple choice question. Since you're not speaking about any particular law yet only want to discuss your opinion about law generally I'm not interested.

I do appreciate you making the point though. Your point highlights the point I've made continually...

  • Generally speaking skeptics think their opinion of the law has an authority that is above the law.

Gene
 
You mentioned the point (singular). Other points aside I got your main point. Your point of ...
  • Legal issues aside..
Reinforces that preception. Then you follow all that with an attempt to discuss 'legal issues'. It is noteworthy that you couch your opinion of law in a multiple choice question. Since you're not speaking about any particular law yet only want to discuss your opinion about law generally I'm not interested.

I do appreciate you making the point though. Your point highlights the point I've made continually...

  • Generally speaking skeptics think their opinion of the law has an authority that is above the law.

Gene

Well, that's your opinion, Gene. Meanwhile, everyone else, and we number a number of actually real genuine legal people among us here, think you are the wrongest kind of wrong. The kind of wrong that won't admit in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. Just-being-contrary wrong.

Get over it, OK!

And now why don't you answer the questions back from the first page of this thread, please.
 

Back
Top Bottom