Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that sparked
this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the lecture hall,
or even on the campus.

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.

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that
sparked this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the
lecture hall, or even on the campus.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.



Can you quote any of his irrational statements?


I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.


Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
–wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
–wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?



Can you quote any of his irrational statements?


I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.


But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymologyerhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
-wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
-wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?


Wrong.



But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.


Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.

Given the content of these articles:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3617513.story
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...s/eichmann.htm

You may be correct.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.

Given the content of these articles:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3617513.story

For me the most important and most telling questions from the beginning
have been not revolved around whether Churchill was wacky or not, but
rather about what we're to think about the intellectual caliber or
intellectual stature of a field of study -- Ethnic Studies -- in which
someone like Churchill can become not merely a tenured professor but a
department chair?!?

(Not to mention the intellectual standards of a university in which this
can happen . . . )