Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"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.


I was just pointing out that this isn't an issue of academic freedom. This
isn't even an issue of free speech, as nobody is trying to silence
Churchill. The issue is whether anybody is required to provide him with a
soapbox.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context
of a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
exactly that, a soapbox to speak from.

Whether he actually earned tenure is also in question, as well as his
qualifications for his position.



Once again, I think his comments are
absurd, but the university community, including professors and students,
are rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide
who should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
semblance of creative thought.

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

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.

This idea, BTW, is my idea of tolerance, and I believe it to be the
single biggest factor as to why western culture zipped ahead of all
others the last 500 years. Inventors and persons who are generally
ahead of their time are often considered oddballs and wackos. As long
as they don't do violence to their fellow citizens and we tolerate
them, the occasional genius arises and, unbothered by society's mores,
they make incredible scientific or cultural advances which benefit us
all.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:23:46 -0700, "Michael 182"
wrote in
::


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
semblance of creative thought.


Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:45:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?


I didn't.


If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


First you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Message-ID: 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.


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.


Clearly the topic is Churchill's "irrational" statements.


-------------------------------------------

Then you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Message-ID: . net

"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.


[]
[ 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 [of] Churchill's statements that you feel are
irrational.


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

Now the subject of your last sentence clearly refers to me not
Churchill, despite your contention to the contrary.

Is it because you are unwilling or unable to support your contention
that Churchill's statements are crazy or irrational, that you resort
to unsupportable and libelous invective?



Here's a little quote for you:

What ever became of logic and reason and, maybe most important,
courtesy? I’m talking about the ability to debate a topic using
facts and a constructive argument while avoiding the cutesy
nicknames, innuendoes and inevitably, the personal insult. Does
anyone but me recall the days when the word argument meant a
challenging conversational exercise on the merits of an issue.
-- Ed Rasimus

http://thundertales.blogspot.com/200...-discourse.htm

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:34:26 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.


What I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser."

And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:31:16 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like