Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

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 Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

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.

"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.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"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.

Gee, I thought you pilot types were focusing on knowing, understanding,
and following the rules -- even when they got a little complex.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

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


Certainly not. The left is lousy with them.

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.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

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!


Agreed. When a nutball like Churchill wishes to say things which prove he's
a nutball the best thing to do is shut up and let him speak.



So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
are useful or not? Time and history do.


Sometimes, but in this case we didn't have to wait.



That's why tenure exists, to
protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk.


Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.



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.


I was ready to chuck it before I ever heard of Churchill.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also protects teachers who
do not conform to the status quo.

Don't believe that a poor teacher can not be thrown out. It is difficult,
but it can be done.

In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always are
wrong. g
--
Jim in NC