Pro-Terrorist Ward Churchill a plagiarist?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you've joined the right-wing witch hunt.

Ward Churchill is an arrogant, publicity-seeking ******* and deserves to get taken down several pegs. He is a mean-spirited cretin.

I could care less about any "right-wing" witch hunt. I just think bad people deserve bad things, and he certainly qualifies.

Or do you think he should be allowed to get away with plagiarism?

[Agathon]

Ward Churchill is an arrogant, publicity-seeking ******* and deserves to get taken down several pegs. He is a mean-spirited cretin.

Sure, but I can think of ten professors at my university who fit the same description. That's no reason to fire them. He's not being hassled because he's an *******, he's being pursued because he said things that people disagree with.

I could care less about any "right-wing" witch hunt. I just think bad people deserve bad things, and he certainly qualifies.

Or do you think he should be allowed to get away with plagiarism?[/q]

You could probably fire any academic for plagiarism if you tried hard enough and there was enough political will to fire them. It tends not to be an all or nothing matter and ideas are hard to pin down.

Who knows if he is guilty. But you're being an absolute sap if you ignore the contex, which is a bunch of knuckle dragging right wing cretins trying to set a precedent by getting someone with opinions they don't like ostracised and fired.

What next? If it comes to light that Mathew Shepard was a despicable person who kicked small dogs and stole from old ladies, can we count on you to change your tune about his attackers?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sure, but I can think of ten professors at my university who fit the same description. That's no reason to fire them. He's not being hassled because he's an *******, he's being pursued because he said things that people disagree with.

I'm not saying he should be fired for being an *******, I'm saying I'll enjoy seeing him fired because he's an *******. He should be fired for committing plagiarism.

You could probably fire any academic for plagiarism if you tried hard enough and there was enough political will to fire them. It tends not to be an all or nothing matter and ideas are hard to pin down.

But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation.

Who knows if he is guilty. But you're being an absolute sap if you ignore the contex, which is a bunch of knuckle dragging right wing cretins trying to set a precedent by getting someone with opinions they don't like ostracised and fired.

Again, whatever the right-wing cretins want is irrelevant to me. I don't think a plagiarist should be defended reflexively just because it might please right-wingers to see him in trouble.

Churchill is an ass and now, it appears, a confirmed plagiarist. If the university wants to have any claim to integrity, it should fire him if the charges have merit. How about setting a precedent of not punishing people who commit plagiarism? I find that prospect rather disgusting.

What next? If it comes to light that Mathew Shepard was a despicable person who kicked small dogs and stole from old ladies, can we count on you to change your tune about his attackers?

And this is a relevant analogy...how? People who do illegal things that hurt others (be it physically attacking them or plagiarizing their work) deserve to be punished for it. Whether or not Shepard was "despicable" is irrelevant to the fact that two people beat and murdered him. God, what a ludicrous comparison!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I'm not saying he should be fired for being an *******, I'm saying I'll enjoy seeing him fired because he's an *******. He should be fired for committing plagiarism.

If he actually did it. But then again, with all the crap that has been printed about him, it's unlikely to be a clear cut case.

And you are missing the point. If Churchill gets fired for anything (even now they are negotiating a settlement between him and CU which is bad enough) the rest of us lose, because it will have been shown that professors with views that right wing loons don't like are vulnerable and the pressure groups will redouble their efforts.

But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation.

Whose investigation? How serious was it. If it's like most of these things it probably isn't clear cut and is a matter for the disciplinary commission.

Again, whatever the right-wing cretins want is irrelevant to me. I don't think a plagiarist should be defended reflexively just because it might please right-wingers to see him in trouble.

You have to be pretty dumb to ignore the context and what it will do to everyone else if these bastards get their way.

In fact it seems obvious that you are that dumb. You can't separate events from their context and pretend it doesn't exist.

Churchill is an ass and now, it appears, a confirmed plagiarist. If the university wants to have any claim to integrity, it should fire him if the charges have merit.

He would have already been fired if they had. Now the whole process will be so hopelessly tainted by the current mess that there's just no possibilty of a fair outcome.

And this is a relevant analogy...how? People who do illegal things that hurt others (be it physically attacking them or plagiarizing their work) deserve to be punished for it. Whether or not Shepard was "despicable" is irrelevant to the fact that two people beat and murdered him. God, what a ludicrous comparison!

No it's actually pretty good. You seem quite prepared to let a right wing witch hunt succeed because it is now operating under another guise, when the plain fact is that they want to get him, not because he's a plagiarist but because he says things they don't like.

It's exactly the same as some gay bashers claiming that they beat the crap out of a guy because he stole their car or something. Maybe he did, but that's not why they did it - they did it because he was gay and anyone who doesn't object to the beating on those grounds is just the stooge of the anti-gay movement.

Ward Churchill isn't being persecuted because he's a plagiarist, he's being persecuted because of right wing political pressure and a win on any count would be terribly damaging to the other "Ward Churchills" who aren't plagiarists or *******s, but hold similar views.

Ignore that, and you ignore the whole point of the Churchill affair.

[DinoDoc]

If it's like most of these things it probably isn't clear cut and is a matter for the disciplinary commission.

We're talking about a uni that let it's football program run amok among other things. I fail to see how you can put much faith in its institutional controls.

[Agathon]

We're talking about a uni that let it's football program run amok among other things. I fail to see how you can put much faith in its institutional controls.

You are right. Funny how Ward Churchill who never beat or raped anyone gets much more press than the jocks.

Universities should just leave professors alone to rant and rave. That's their job.

Nuke 'em all I say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon

We're talking about a uni that let it's football program run amok among other things. I fail to see how you can put much faith in its institutional controls.

You are right. Funny how Ward Churchill who never beat or raped anyone gets much more press than the jocks.

Well they stopped doing that after the University cover up collapsed. Ward just decided to volunteer to be the next whipping boy. You still haven't answered the question of why you feel we should trust the ability of the uni to discipline anyone given the institutional problems they were/are going through.

[Odin]

I really am really torn over this, I think he should go, but if he goes, the conservatives with try to use this against other liberal proffs who arn't rude asses, liberal groups will then start attacking conservative proffs in retaliation, and all of a sudden we ha a 2-headed witch hunt. And who looses? Students like me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
the conservatives with try to use this against other liberal proffs who arn't rude asses, liberal groups will then start attacking conservative proffs in retaliation, and all of a sudden we ha a 2-headed witch hunt.

I imagine it'd be kind of hard to engage most peoples' gives a **** unless said professor does something akin to calling civlians who died in a terrorist attack Nazi war criminals. Maybe that's just me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
If he actually did it. But then again, with all the crap that has been printed about him, it's unlikely to be a clear cut case.

Of course it's "if he actually did it." I never said otherwise. I don't think he should be fired if he didn't do it. But the point is, if he did do it, he deserves to be fired, and I will revel in it because he's an *******.

And you are missing the point. If Churchill gets fired for anything (even now they are negotiating a settlement between him and CU which is bad enough) the rest of us lose, because it will have been shown that professors with views that right wing loons don't like are vulnerable and the pressure groups will redouble their efforts.

No, it will show that people who plagiarize will get punished for doing so. How could you possibly hope someone who plagiarized would get away with it? Are you so blinded by your lunatic fringe ideology that you think people who share your views are entitled to special status above the law?

But the plagiarism charge stems from 1997, well before Churchill inspired a "witch hunt," and was validated by an investigation.

Whose investigation? How serious was it. If it's like most of these things it probably isn't clear cut and is a matter for the disciplinary commission.

It's in the article, dufus. Why don't you read it?

You have to be pretty dumb to ignore the context and what it will do to everyone else if these bastards get their way.

In fact it seems obvious that you are that dumb. You can't separate events from their context and pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh please. Show me how the plagiarism charge is in any way related to this right-wing attacks. As I said before, the charges first surfaced in 1997, well before Churchill was such a public figure. And is the person accusing him of plagiarism a right-wing lunatic? No, she's a fellow leftist academic. Yeah, there's a conspiracy for you.

I'm not the one being dumb here. If you're dumb enough to let your bias control your thinking so that when it comes to someone committing plagiarism, you'd excuse it just so some people won't be happy in Churchill's downfall, then I suppose it speaks a lot also of your integrity.

He would have already been fired if they had. Now the whole process will be so hopelessly tainted by the current mess that there's just no possibilty of a fair outcome.

Did you read the article? The charges weren't pursued by the original author. So they wouldn't have yet had any grounds to fire him.

No it's actually pretty good. You seem quite prepared to let a right wing witch hunt succeed because it is now operating under another guise, when the plain fact is that they want to get him, not because he's a plagiarist but because he says things they don't like.

Again, you seem to be making stuff up out of thin air. The accuser in this case isn't part of a right-wing cabal, she's just another author whose work allegedly Churchill stole. Why shouldn't her complaint get legitimate attention just because you don't like the fact that it might please people who don't like Churchill? You really don't care about integrity, do you?

It's exactly the same as some gay bashers claiming that they beat the crap out of a guy because he stole their car or something. Maybe he did, but that's not why they did it - they did it because he was gay and anyone who doesn't object to the beating on those grounds is just the stooge of the anti-gay movement.

This is the most ludicrous stretch I've seen. You could give Fez a run for his money.

Did I mention that the allegations aren't coming from the right-wing yet? Oh right, I did...

I do find it amusing that every time you have a disagreement with a gay poster, you throw up some argument like this, seeking to paste the gay person as a "hypocrite" under an assumption we would have different standards for gay people. Hey guess what--if Churchill was gay, I wouldn't think any different of him. How about that?

Ward Churchill isn't being persecuted because he's a plagiarist, he's being persecuted because of right wing political pressure and a win on any count would be terribly damaging to the other "Ward Churchills" who aren't plagiarists or *******s, but hold similar views.

Ignore that, and you ignore the whole point of the Churchill affair.

I don't doubt that. I've defended Churchill's right to express his repugnant views before. But that's irrelevant to this issue. Just because he has been targeted by right-wing whackos doesn't give him a free pass to commit plagiarism, nor any other crime.

If he were shown to have committed rape, would you want him left alone because convicting him would make the right-wing happy? That seems to be your silly line of reasoning--you don't care what he may have done, just let him get away with it so long as the right-wing doesn't get to see him punished?

So, let's see what's the more reasonable position:

Me: If Churchill's guilty of the charges, he should be fired. Since he's a pompous ******* who says repugnant things, I'll enjoy it if that happens.

You: Who cares if Churchill committed a crime or not? He should be given carte blanche to do as he likes because actually enforcing the law would give a small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate.

Looks to me like your position is not only the dumb one, it's downright malicious.

[Berzerker]

[DanS]

Don't mind Agathon. He's still sore about Socrates.

[Sava]

Boris vs Agathon... that was unexpected.

[Giancarlo]

Even good minded left wing people have to call up agathon on his constant spewing of nonsense. I'm sorry but I think it is evil that anybody call 9/11 victims nazis. He has the right to express what views that he wants, but to defend the man.. I don't know how you could do that Agathon... he was basically convicted of plagiarism because they did find the charges have merit.

It's exactly the same as some gay bashers claiming that they beat the crap out of a guy because he stole their car or something. Maybe he did, but that's not why they did it - they did it because he was gay and anyone who doesn't object to the beating on those grounds is just the stooge of the anti-gay movement.

That's a real slick card to pull... bring up gay rights? Why do it, agathon? You think you can politically manipulate people into your games? Even Boris is agreeing with me in essence here.. I think Churchill should be fired (and these charges were in fact substantiated according to the article I posted.

Ward Churchill isn't being persecuted because he's a plagiarist, he's being persecuted because of right wing political pressure and a win on any count would be terribly damaging to the other "Ward Churchills" who aren't plagiarists or *******s, but hold similar views.

Hey *******, the man called 9/11 victims nazis.. I knew someone who barely got out in time. His co-workers and brother died. If my friend knew about this Ward Churchill guy, and I bet he does, he would kill him. Beat the living **** out of him. He is a repugnant monster who deserves to be fired. I think he also should be given a beating to induce some common sense in his inferior mind. Why I call him inferior? Because obviously he can't do something on his own. He has to steal work.

And to think this ******* was ever offered a position at CSUN (according to the student newspaper sundial)...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Well, but to be completely fair, many Americans do share a portion of the blame in that they could, at any time have stopped the many atrocities carried out by the United States (infact, many times it was supported by the American people) and share both a responsibility for past atrocities and a responsibility to prevent future atrocities, in much the same vein as, perhaps, the German people before/after WW2.

This still does not allow terrorists to strike at those who had nothing to do with foreign policy, like my friend's brother. So I don't think you are being fair at all. And additionally America is a great nation... and that's my opinion. I do not think you should go around calling innocent people nazis...