Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

In article 8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
statements, above.

To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the 's in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.

"AES" wrote in message
...

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the 's in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.


Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
form.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53...
Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a nut on
every street corner nowadays.

However, where his employer needs to become involved is when we find that
this opinion is being expressed by a guy who is actually being paid (by
"We
the People") to *teach* this kind of crap to students. At some point you
have to question the mental abilities of a guy who would be ignorant
enough
to draw such a comparison.

THAT is why his tenure is under review -- not because anyone wants to deny
him his rights.

His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
drivel.

Interestingly, the same ones screaming about his 1st Amendment rights are
the SAME ones that have been stomping on students and contrary faculty for
YEARS.

http://academicbias.com/bw101.html

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which
actually
contradicts your claim.


The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
comparison is absurd.


Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
legitimately targeted by the Allies.

Not much of a justification.

He certainly has Orwellian double-speak down to an art.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Jay Honeck wrote:

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

Except in academia and as long as the unpopular speech is leftist, not
rightwing stuff.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for it.

"AES" wrote in message
...
In article 8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the 's in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.

Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.

Bob Fry wrote:
Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Newps and Jay agree that:
That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

You guys say he's a "nutball." No doubt many others think he's got
something legit to say. Me, I don't care much what he says 'cause I'm
from California: far out, dude!

So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
are useful or not? Time and history do. That's why tenure exists, to
protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk. Even if you
lived in Colorado, your cost for his salary would be something like 22
cents/year or whatever. The whole "public has to pay" thing is a red
herring. The real issue is you don't like him and want to screw him.

Unless some academic prof does something *really* egregious, I'm on
the side of those defending him and his paid, tenured position. He's
doing what his job description says to do: think, and express the
result of that thinking. Tenure has a long history behind it; are you
so willing to chuck it over one guy? That's scary.

"Matt Barrow" writes:

His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
drivel.

True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.

But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"AES" wrote in message
...

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the 's in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.


Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
form.

Wouldn't quarrel with that assessment. Possibly confusing, but not
necessarily illegal.