Psychology: Generaly defined as the Scientific Study of the Mind and Behavior

Dee

@maxx

70 per cent failure rate is reason enough for me ,you and Z love your pseudoscience it seems

maxx

considering you use psychologists to say psychology is not a  science says a lot. It is  like saying there is  no god because god says so. as well since you never shown rhe link, pretty much says you made the statistics up.  @Dee

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

considering you use psychologists to say psychology is not a  science says a lot. It is  like saying there is  no god because god says so.  @Dee

Well spotted. I found that rather amusing too. 

PS: Inb4 Dee says something juvenile like me and you should get a room. Perhaps we can share the same room with him and his Islamic Extremist friend nomenclature? eh.

Dee

@ZeusAres42 ;"Muslim extremist friend" ....LOL ....all because he detested the way the state of Israel treated Palestinians ......really....

Dee

@maxx

I showed 78 links you d-mmy if you even cared to read the piece.

Also my statement was to do with the fact that scientists and psychologists agree profiling is nonsense , I know you and your squeeze Z disagree but cannot demonstrate why .

ZeusAres42

@Dee if you want a serious discussion then stop mucking around here and do it with me in formal. Otherwise, we're done here. At least having a serious debate anyway. Thanks for playing though.  

Barnardot

@maxx ;yes when something goes againts your beliefs, then you will deny it no matter what.

yes well that is totally right and what Ive found is that I found that the more  loony the argument is then the more loonier these people get and make up even bigger lies and diversions to cover there totally dum positions. Like Dee has repetered the same thing about 78 scientists over and over. So in the end all he does is gas lighting and getting real nasty to every one because he cant even argue any where near properly now at all. The thing is though is that you can only keep that sort of behavior up for only so long.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

I attempted a serious discussion with my  opening remark on this debate and it was totally ignored , not one person even attempted to address it.

Dee

@Barnardot

I never get nasty unless people get nasty with me.

Those 78 links are still there denial.of such is childish.

maxx

sure.  you made those stats up. zues and i , especially zues, provided plenty of evidence on how psychology is a social science. In return, all you have done is say psychology has replication issues; in which all sciences do. That and make false stats up. If that is the best you can do....@Dee

Dee

@maxx

Interesting, I made up the 78 links and 78 scientists and psychologists papers backing up my claim, you know how desperate you sound?

Read my opening statement on this debate that's what has you all running as not one of you can address it.

maxx

your opening statement was a flaw, because all sciences has the same issues in accuracy; you just can not admit that.   Your opening link is nothing more that non ethical psychology experiments.  here...(DOC) Psychology is science | Solomon Udofia - Academia.edu   @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Nonsense

maxx

well, i guess that is the best that you can do. thanks for your time and your try. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Well I guess that is the best you can do, thanks for at least trying.

Barnardot

@Dee ;Those 78 links are still there denial.of such is childish.

That’s right so why do you keep denying that they say totally nothing at all to back up your claim and why do you keep denying that there paid editorial s that use pursuasivr language and that they are not accredited papers not one of them or did you not research that or even bother to read any of them yourself. Now stop being immature and wetting your pants all the time because man your got a heap of issues going on to put it mildly. Oh and stop your childish gas lighting and repeating. Your acting totally infantile an should leave this site because there no value in having people like you who have to behave so Stu pid

Dee

@Barnardot

How would you know you didn't even read one link?

Now your latest " theory " is that they were all paid ,not any are accredited and no research went into any of the 78 papers you still didn't read yet?

You do know you're nuts right?

maxx

I read every single reply on here; you posted 2 links.  The first is nothing but a list of non ethical experiments. says nothing about the stats you made up.  the second link is an article by the guardian, in which if i posted it to support a claim you would laugh at. The guardian is nothing more than a tabloid so do not use something in which you would not accept on other topics. And as well, no where in the article does it back up or state the stats that you gave. If you have to lie about your own links, i suggest you do not post them so we can read them and find out your lies.  @Dee

Barnardot

@Dee @maxx ; says nothing about the stats you made up. 

Every one but you has red them and every one is saying the same thing and all your diss honest diversions are not working because you have made a dum argument thts supported with nothing at all. So your got to wonder why every one is nuts except you.

Dee

@maxx

Ah right my sources have no live links only the 78 you and Barndoor keep saying don't exist. The guardian is just fine ,poisoning the well is a pretty desperate tactic much loved by losers, you're actually saying the psychologists who wrote the article are now liars and writers for a dodgy newspaper,  so that's your new conspiracy theory?

You still never addressed my opening remark as you have no defence. You actually think criminal profiling is real science, WOW!

What is it you think you're doing? Do you actually think I'm going to change my mind because a conspiracy theorist and pseudoscience believer  like you 

assumes I belive a word a compulsive and thug like you utters?

Dee

@Barnardot

Only Dee has red them and every one is saying the same thing and all dishonest diversions are not working because Dee has made a brilliant argument thsts supported . So you do not have  to wonder why every one is nuts except Dee.

maxx

sure,  i once used the guardian on my post in which you denounced as worthless trash because it went againts your beliefs. and again, you only had 2 links on here, neither backs up your stats. anyone can look and see that. All you are doing is making a out of yourself. makes you a bit delusional. perhaps you should see a psychologist. Produce the link that support your stats!! @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Nonsense, prove it? I've still 78 if you even bothered to scrool down the page of  my second article , so what are you lying?

The only delusional ones here are you and Barndoor pretending the links don't exist. Here's just piece from highly respected science writer Ian Sample which Maxx and Bardoor say don't exist as anyone who disagrees with them  is a  or using invalid sources .......

Psychological profiling 'worse than useless'

Profiling of killers has no real-world value, wastes police time and risks bringing the profession into disrepute, experts say

Ian Sample, Science Correspondent

@iansample

Murder inquiries may be misled or delayed by psychologists who see themselves as real-life Crackers, researchers claim.

Police forces routinely ask behavioural scientists to draw up profiles of killers who are still at large, based on a knowledge of the victim and details recorded at the crime scene.

But according to a team of psychologists at Birmingham City University, the practice of offender profiling is deeply unscientific and risks bringing the field into disrepute.

In many cases, offender profiles are so vague as to be meaningless, according to psychologist Craig Jackson. At best, they have little impact on murder investigations; at worst they risk misleading investigators.

maxx

psychological profiling on serial killers. first, that all it is, a profile. Even police detectives produce these in their case files. All it is, is simply modish operendi.  nothing but clues on how the person operates. The psychologist does not see, or talk with the person, no actual interaction at all. It is not even actual psychology.  it is an attempt at tracking. It is like seeing a footprint in the snow and trying to gain insight to the persons mind.  of course it is almost impossible. perhaps a lighter was in the print.  is he a smoker?  an attempt at a campfire? was it even his.  It's guess work at that point. Its not psychology it is detective work. you just keep gathering clues. Psychology is based on interaction with the person where communication is the actual part of it. gaining insight on a person based upon objects, is not psychology. It is nothing but profiling.You seem to have a very wrong idea on what psychology is and how it operates. You also fail to produce a link that support your stats. I also would never have said psychology is not a science because of replication issues since all sciences have them It would have been better to say it is based upon individualism instead of collective points,  Psychology is a social science, and is the study of the mind and how it operates within each person. Perhaps you should actually read a text book on it before you simply dismiss it.   @Dee

Dee

@maxx


I think maybe you need to read a text book on science as you confuse pseudoscience and science consistently. In the past you have claimed remote viewing is science, you claimed psychics like Edgar Cayce were healers, hypnotism was science and garlic was a miracle cure , do you begin to see a pattern here?

Also now you're openly admitting that criminal psychology is not "actual psychology " I agree at last you've seen the light.

Also denying 78 links regarding criminal profilng demonstrates how childish you are.

You still stubbornly refuse to address my opening sentence on your debate , we all know why.

Sucess rates in psychology are low by any standards do a bit of research instead of constant trolling.

A pretty good science book for beginners is A short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson , you really need to stop believing everything Deepak Chopra says it doesn't help.

Barnardot

@Dee Okay right now were talking about one self in the second person as well as utterly lying and diverting. This is not good and I think every one a round here will agree that wetting your shorts every time you come up with such nutty things is not to good at all. So what your got to do is get your mom to by some Boudreaux Butt Paste Maximum Stregnth Diaper Rash cream. It is totally the best for when you wet your pants so often. And when you grow up and try to be a bit mature then your mom might take you to a psychologist because you really need it.

Dee

@Barnardot

Wow! I'm getting advice from an uneducated  bible thumping chicken plucker ....gee thanks

maxx

you can not stick to the subject can you.  also you apparently can not understand what others right; you also do not know how to debate because you still refuse to back up your statement about the 75 psychologists.  everyone on here knows you are a . i also never said criminal psychology was not a science.  all i said it requires interaction. Profiling simply by clues is hard and yes many times it is incorrect. however it is not all wrong. nor does it make it not a science. Psychological Profiling – Serial Killers Caught by Behaviour Analysis (gavinreese.com)  If i tell a doctor over the phone my symptoms and he is wrong about my dionogis, does that make him not a doctor? nope. he needs to see me and run tests.  face it dee, you simply do not understand that this is  a debate site. That means you answer the questions put to you and back up your statements. It is apparent that you do not know how to do that. all you have is replication in which all sciences have issues with. that and a lame attempt on using a psychologist to say psychology is not a science. How long have you been on this site? 2 years? In all that time all you do is not answer questions, insult and ridicule, ignore science links when the go against your beliefs; then use the same science sites for what you believe in. All that time an you still refuse to debate properly  psychology is a social science. . @Dee ;

Dee

References

References marked with one asterisk indicate studies included in the narrative review. References marked with two asterisks indicate studies included in both the narrative and the meta-analytic reviews.

Google Scholar

*Aitkens, C.G.G., Connolly, T., Gammerman, A., Zhang, G., Bailey, D., Gordon, R., & Oldfield, R. (1996). Statistical modelling in specific case analysis . Science and Justice, 36, 245-255.

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 115-135.

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., & Canter, D.V. (1999a). Professional, legal and ethical issues in offender profiling. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 21-54). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., & Canter, D.V. (1999b). Profiling in policy and practice. In D. V. Canter & L. J. Alison (Eds.), Profiling in policy and practice (pp. 1-19). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., & Salfati, C.G. (1998). The investigative psychology approach. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 101-112). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut.

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., Smith, M.D., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin's philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 173-183.

Google Scholar

*Alison, L.J., Smith, M.D., & Morgan, K. (2002). Interpreting the accuracy of offender profiles . Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 185-195.

Google Scholar

*Annon, J.S. (1995). Investigative profiling: A behavioral analysis of the crime scene. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13, 67-75.

Google Scholar

*Åsgard, U. (1998). Swedish experiences in offender profiling and evaluation of some aspects of a case of murder and abduction in Germany. In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 125-129). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut.

Google Scholar

*Ault, R.L., Hazelwood, R.R., & Reboussin, R. (1994). Epistemological status of equivocal death analysis . American Psychologist, 49, 72-73.

Google Scholar

*Ault, R.L., & Reese, J.T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling . FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 22-25.

Google Scholar

*Badcock, R.J. (1997). Developmental and clinical issues in relation to offending in the individual. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 9-41). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Google Scholar

*Bekerian, D.A., & Jackson, J.L. (1997). Critical issues in offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 209-220). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Bennell, C., Jones, N.J., Taylor, P.J., & Snook, B. (2006). Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: A critique of the studies conducted by Richard Kocsis and his colleagues. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 344-360.

Google Scholar

*Blau, T.H. (1994). Psychological profiling. In T. H. Blau (Ed.), Psychological services for law enforcement (pp. 261-274). New York: Wiley .

Google Scholar

*Boon, J.C.W. (1997). The contribution of personality theories to psychological profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 43-59). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Google Scholar

*Boon, J.C.W. (1998). Science, psychology and psychological profiling . In Case Analysis Unit (Ed.), Case Analysis Unit (BKA), Method of Case Analysis: An International Symposium (pp. 143-154). Weisbaden, Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Kriminalistisches Institut.

Google Scholar

*Boon, J.C.W., & Davies, G. (1993). Criminal profiling. Policing, 9, 218-227.

Google Scholar@maxx

Dear me you're now quoting the words of a former police man as evidence that profiling is accurate despite me giving you testimonies from psychologists and scientists saying  it's not , here's a quote from the unqualified nut you now pin your hopes on...... "My great aunt and uncle used to get together with close friends to talk about spirituality and dream analysis. I wish they were still here; this would have made great conversation with them. The benefit for them is that they already know what’s next."
So the words of a self proclaimed believer in dream analysis and spirituality is more reliable than 78 scientists,  WOW!

Here is a list above of a small sample of the Google links I supplied that you and Barndoor deny exist ......every source quoted at you has you wailing " its not reliable, its biased, they were paid to say that" etc,etc.




I also never said criminal psychology was not a science


You did you filthy l-ar.....


. Its not psychology it is detective work.

You keep going on about replication for some reason known to yourself maybe because despite asking you one simple question in my very first statement you're still running , dodging , swerving , psychology is mostly pseudoscience,  that's a fact get over it.

At this stage you're behaving like a bible thumper by consistently screeching " you're wrong" so why are you trying to persuade me in believing your nonsense?

I don't care you don't accept what I say so why do you and Barndoor keep chasing me around trying to persuade me otherwise do you actually think I'm suddenly going to change all because a low life thug and new age disciple  like you or a bible thumping chicken plucker like Barndoor say so?

The reason im top of the leader board here is obviously because i'm top dog Barndoor and you are way down the table because of your dreadful debating skills and typically American inbred genetic st-pidity.

maxx

again, you have no link that says anything about 75 psychologists. science is the study of natural and physicals aspects of the world. What do you think the human brain is, if not part of the world. hphxppsych.pdf (upenn.edu) @Dee

Dee

@maxx

What are you on about you loon? The 78 psychologists and scientists I supplied have all written about profiling,  you cannot even keep up with you're that insane.

What the f-ck are you on about?

Dee

@maxx


Watch this now I just bet Mas Maxx says this source is also " not reliable". Here is yet another pscholgist who equates criminal profiling as akin to being on a par with fortune telling which again proves that any type of pseudoscience out there Mad Maxx and Barndoor believes it hook, line and sinker 

Times

Real life “crackers” who attempt to penetrate the minds of serial killers were yesterday accused of being “worthless” purveyors of bad science.

Criminal profilers, such as the Fitz character portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the Cracker TV series, were said to be “dragging down” psychology and almost on a par with fortune tellers.

The assault came from consultant psychologist Craig Jackson, co-author of a damning critique of the profession soon to be published in a legal journal.

He argues that criminal profiling may be surrounded by a media-driven mystique but is unscientific and potentially harmful.

“Behavioural profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer or murderer, so it seems to have no real-world value,” said Dr Jackson.

“There have been no clinical trials to show that behavioural profiling works and there have been major miscarriages of justice.

“It’s given too much credibility as a scientific discipline and I think this is a serious issue.”

Profiling involves building up a picture of an as-yet unidentified suspect from the offender’s methods, choice of victim, and clues left at the crime scene.

Britain’s best known criminal profiler is Paul Britton, who has been involved in high profile cases such as the Fred and Rose West killings, and the murders of James Bulger, schoolgirl Naomi Smith and Rachel Nickell.

In 2002 Mr Britton was cleared of professional misconduct by the British Psychological Society after the collapse of the case against Nickell suspect Colin Stagg.

Serial rapist Robert Napper eventually admitted murdering Ms Nickell on Wimbledon Common, south-west London, in 1992.

Dr Jackson will voice his criticisms this week at the British Festival of Science, which opened today at Aston University in Birmingham.

The technique of behavioural profiling was first adopted by the FBI in 1972 and had been “going non-stop ever since”, he said.

But although it had provided colourful material for newspapers, movies and TV programmes, there was no evidence that profiling did any good, he said.

“As psychologists we have concerns that the ‘science’ of behavioural science is dragging us down,” said Dr Jackson.

He said that typically criminal profilers portrayed themselves more as witch doctors than scientists; people with unusual special gifts that were both a blessing and a burden.

“They bring themselves forward as if they are shamans cursed with the nightmares of dead people,” said Dr Jackson. “It almost takes us back to primitivism. It isn’t a good advert for science.”

maxx

i clicked on several of your links, in which the majority Aare but abstracts. no actual articles. Most of what i read does not support your claims. as well this is a debate on if psychology is a science or not, remember?  the ONLY thing you proved is it has replication problems in which all sciences have. Psychology follows the same criteria as all sciences do in which zues showed very clearly in which you did not prove wrong.  Have you proved psychology is not a science by saying it has replication issues? nope. Have you proved it  does not follow the same criteria as other sciences? nope. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Hilarious,  Mad Maxx asks for links gets them spoon fed to him and then does his usual by flying into a tantrum claiming he is a fabulous debater yet is rated bottom of the Competition  table with Mickey G, christ warrior , Barndoor etc, etc,  while I'm still top its gotta hurt going on Mad Maxxs hissy fits.

Dee

@maxx

Stop lying you never even  read one of them you l-ar.

maxx

there you go; i did click on them. most are but abstracts. and agasin you simple resort to insults rather than debate. Talk about a mental issue.2.1 Psychologists Use the Scientific Method to Guide Their Research – Introduction to Psychology (umn.edu)  why do you insist it is not a science?  give me a better reason that replication issues. all sciences have them.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Nonsense. My very first statement on this debate proved why it's not science, you keep pretending it doesn't exist.

maxx

Your first statement was its inability to make accurate predictions. That is why you consider it not a science(not proof) and our  reply was for you to name a science that does not have the same issues in which you failed to answer. stop playing games and debate. answer the questions. @Dee

Dee

" Our reply" Z said he wanted nothing to do with you and your id-iotic comments.

Listen up you clown you just said criminal profiling was " guesswork" and wasn't psychology then you said it was pschology even when I gave you the words of a pscychologist saying its akin to fortune telling.

Now you're stating that predictability in psychology is on a par with predictability in Quantum Mechanics ......seriously you're an ID-IOT

maxx

f off more-on. answer the questions or have fun talking to yourself. what part of the scientific method does not psychology follow?  what sciences does not have prediction issues? it is unbeliable how you can not answer questions, especially when you claim other wize. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

" Our reply" Z said he wanted nothing to do with you and your id-iotic comments.

Listen up you clown you just said criminal profiling was " guesswork" and wasn't psychology then you said it was pschology even when I gave you the words of a pscychologist saying its akin to fortune telling.

Now you're stating that predictability in psychology is on a par with predictability in Quantum Mechanics ......seriously you're an ID-IOT

maxx

bye loser. you refuse to answer questions. You refuse to back up your own claims.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Poor Maxx flings the toys out his pram in a fit, let's re-cap......

Maxx said criminal profiling was " guesswork" and wasn't psychology then he said it was pscyhology even when I gave him the words of recognisecd  pscychologist saying its akin to fortune telling.

Now Maxx is stating that predictability in psychology is on a par with predictability in Quantum Mechanics ......seriously Maxx is an ID-IOT

Maxx actually thinks criminal profiling is just as predictable as Quantum Mechanics , you gotta wonder how parents raised such a spectacularly st-pid slob.

maxx

i suppose you do not believe archeology  is a science. either. How do you figure they reconstruct how a society lived in ancient times? They use psychological profiling by the artifacts left behind. I will tell you one thing and i could care less if you do not believe it. ALL sciences uses psychology in one form or the other when it comes to dealing with humans. Everyone uses it in their daily lives. As long as there are humans involved, psychology in one form or the other is there. I have aske you two questions many times in which you refuse to answer. In a debate, that means you have lost. do you really expect people to listen to you ramble on about nothing; just to hear insults, to have you not answer questions? It is a debate site little man, dont you understand?  Psychology is everywhere. all walks of life uses it. You have not proved it is not a science by inaccuracy of prediction because all sciences has that. You also failed to show how psychology does not use the same methods as other sciences. What do you do instead?  resort to ridicule and insults.  way to debate!  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Mad Maxx still trying to deflect , dodge and swerve here is what the clown  is avoiding addressing .....

Poor Maxx flings the toys out his pram in a fit, let's re-cap......

Maxx said criminal profiling was " guesswork" and wasn't psychology then he said it was pscyhology even when I gave him the words of recognisecd  pscychologist saying its akin to fortune telling.

Now Maxx is stating that predictability in psychology is on a par with predictability in Quantum Mechanics ......seriously Maxx is an ID-IOT

Maxx actually thinks criminal profiling is just as predictable as Quantum Mechanics , you gotta wonder how parents raised such a spectacularly st-pid slob.

 

Barnardot

@Dee @maxx I gave him the words of recognisecd  pscychologist saying its akin to fortune telling

And that recognized psychologist did not say any such thing and you know it so your still lying out of despiration as well as talking in the wrong person which is a sign that some things not quiet right on the top floor..

Dee

@Barnardot

**And that recognised psychologist did not say any such thing.....**

Real life “crackers” who attempt to penetrate the minds of serial killers were yesterday accused of being “worthless” purveyors of bad science.

Criminal profilers, such as the Fitz character portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the Cracker TV series, were said to be “dragging down” psychology and almost on a par with fortune tellers.......

Read that last sentence again ( you're that dumb I've highlighted it for you)  you loon you're that dense you actually deny what people say even when it's posted to you in their own words.

maxx

one thing dee does not understand is what a pseudo  science is and they do not teach them in schools.  Thye do not teach palmistry, or phrenology, or astrology in schools, yet psychology is taught in schools, colleges, and universities all over the world, and one has to go through years of schooling to earn a degree. @Barnardot

Dee

@maxx


one thing dee does not understand is what a pseudo  science is and they do not teach them in schools

Well actually I'm well aware of what pseudoscience is and you can get a degree in such in the US.


.  Thye do not teach palmistry, or phrenology, or astrology in school

They actually have colleges for it in the US for each subject as Americans worship pseudoscience  and see it as an academic discipline ( read the link below)

Come on you guys have a college just to learn how to make a hamburger , a nation of retarded dummies .


s, yet psychology is taught in schools, colleges, and universities all over the world, and one has to go through years of schooling to earn a degree. @Barnardot

Yes just like it takes years to get an Astrology degree in the US , your point being?




https://www.keplercollege.org/#:~:text=Kepler College is one of,best in quality Astrological education.


https://www.collegeofpsychicstudies.co.uk/on-demand/palmistry-palm-reading/what-will-i-learn-on-a-palmistry-course/


https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/pdf/nlm:nlmuid-101602234-bk

maxx

dumb a **, neither one of those links are a credited college.   .none are educational schools. none are high schools or actual universities. man, you get dumber every day. kepler ?  the school of psychics?  Lord are you dumb. They do not teach any of those courses in high school, nor yale, or harvard or  any universitiy. Talk about reaching . LMAO. All you got dee? Hey i just got a degree in astrology from the college of bubba, the guy on the corner. Haw haw haw. why not post more tabloids  ?  you do not even know what a credited college is. @Dee