REGURGE for a curious find... See the comments.REREGURGE for this As to the deep mysteries of the previous regurge, Tecs, I suggest you read.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Planet Pepe sings hosannas for its Hero
REGURGE for a curious find... See the comments.REREGURGE for this As to the deep mysteries of the previous regurge, Tecs, I suggest you read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
You want Churchill to get fired for about the same shit that Obama does.
I "want" him to get fired? What the heck are you talking about, Mr Rot? He was fired, for cause. Now some shyster convinced some stooopid jury (same one as in the OJ trial?) that Ward Churchill is a paragon of integrity and honesty. Jeez, is there any lower bound to stupidity in these juries?
In civil cases, it is "majority rules", I believe. For the sake of staving off utter hopelessness, I'm going to pretend the decision was 7-5, with at least one of the 7 being an accident of a request for a potty break being misinterpreted. I have no evidence for that, whatsoever, of course, but then Pepe's mode of reasoning is not altogether uninfectious.
Tecs, UC will be effectively unfired. Trust me.
a few lese right-wing PC comments and all that first amendment talk flies out the window. very entertaining.
The unholy Pepe-Rot alliance strikes again. To keep it simple for you guys:
* Calling victims of mass murder "little Eichmanns" is not going against "right wing PC", but rather (1) false on the face of it, and (2) totally obnoxious to anyone except the most repugnant pinkos.
* The Hero of Planet Rotten Pepe was fired by UC for cause, ie, plagiarism, and making verifiably false statements, thereby violating the code of academic conduct.
Period.
(1) false on the face of it, and
(2) totally obnoxious to anyone except the most repugnant pinkos.
I totally agree. Still, it is protected speech and should be treated as such. end of story.
The Hero of Planet Rotten Pepe was fired by UC for cause, ie, plagiarism, and making verifiably false statements, thereby violating the code of academic conduct.
Period.
Should instructors violating the code of academic conduct by stating the earth is 6,000 years old also all be fired?
Hypotheticals, Pepe, hypotheticals -- just your mushroom-fueled pinko imagination. In case at hand, there was a 20-person UC committee that reviewed all records of this pathetic bozo, and concluded that he's a total fraud, and a slobbering idiot to boot. Fair grounds for dismissal, I say -- especially in view of the fact that he also cheated on his tenure procedure.
he's a total fraud, and a slobbering idiot to boot.
sounds like the hiring committee has some explaining to do but you haven't answered the question about your creationist buddies. if the threshold for dismissal is fraud and idiocy, you're not going to find a single instructors in the state of arkansas!
this is nothing more than right-wing PC and it's as absurd as the other varietal.
"Should instructors violating the code of academic conduct by stating the earth is 6,000 years old also all be fired?"
You don't violate the code of academic conduct by stating the earth is 6,000 years old. You violate it if you claim that idea as your own when in fact you have cribbed it from someone elses work.
Plagiarism ain't the same as getting it wrong. You claim 2+2=5, fine, as long as you cite Mr. O'Brien and don't try to hoodwink the reader that you are the genius behind the arithmetic of Room 101.
Of course, Le Pew's confusion of PP's political correctness with violation of the code of academic conduct is par for the course in Vichy.
i have made no statements about the issue of plagiarism. Simply the fact that his not conforming to your PC view of 9/11 isn't ground for dismissal. There would be nothing to disagree with here if it weren't for the fact that, like an idiotic inverted sheep, you find it irresistible to state white if i say black. Grow up.
Le Pew "I have made no statements about the issue of plagiarism. Simply the fact that his not conforming to your PC view of 9/11 isn't ground for dismissal."
Red Herring being eaten by a Strawman. Quite a work of the Poseur's art you've conjured up there, Aristo. His dismissal was precisely based on his plagiarism, and his lying as to his credentials. It was not based on his exquisitely argued Pepean views. If you had "forgotten" this, well, muchacho, all you had to do was read the article and you would have seen it again for yourself.
Oh, what's that you yourself quoted in the comment section? "was fired by UC for cause, ie, plagiarism, and making verifiably false statements, thereby violating the code of academic conduct."
Gee, it seems you at that point hadn't forgotten. That lapse in memory must have been neatly timed between then and now. Or, just maybe, you don't even read what you quote. Or, more probably, you are a moron whose tiny pair of neurons can't grasp that your belching out "Not X" is kinda, sorta, blasted to hell by you having just moments before put out "X"
"There would be nothing to disagree with here if it weren't for the fact that, like an idiotic inverted sheep, you find it irresistible to state white if i say black."
Uh huh. Now read what you wrote again. If you are capable of reading your own writ. Then see above.
"Grow up." To enter into the cretinous ranks of the Pepean aristo, and master the sort of "arguments" you proffer? Now that is simply hilarious.
You know, Le Pew, so sorry, I'll go with the Tin Drum.
Ever the defender of RWN-PC dogma, you happily rely on the opinion of the University acting as judge and party to determine he plagiarized, seeing no possible conflict of interest.
As far as any objective observer can tell, this is a hanging he got for his nonsensical Eichmann statement and the university likely contrived the academic malfeasance charge after realizing they had no cause. This is why the court found in his favor.
What's the "curious find" in those stooopid HuffPo comments? Of course, pinkos will stay by their man, no matter what. Part of the definition of being a pinko. What's new or curious in that?
Well, to some extent you are right: we won't know either way for sure. But it's a plausible scenario to say the least.
besides, as much as you want this to be a left-right issue, no "pinkos" believe the 3000 people massacred somehow deserved it, even if they were all yuppies, at least not because they are "pinkos". this dude says this because he is an idiot disconnected from human suffering, but compassionate conservatives don't hold a monopoly or even set any standard for commiseration (not a bad thing for humanity). This is only an issue of fundamental fairness.
No matter how you slice and dice it, Ward Churchill does not belong to the professorate. He's an embarrassment to his profession, and to CU. The best he can do is flip burgers in a local joint. And that's that.
Tecs, the professoriate is a joke. I am reading some 'research' in education for a project here.
Plagiarism would be much better than what they write.
Also, Tecs, you should read the commenters' names where I post. I know it's tough.
Which commenters' name? Where do you post? Yes, it's tough to follow your convoluted grammar. Try again, Mr Rot, with simple, crisp, declarative sentences.
No matter how you slice and dice it, Ward Churchill should be able to express anything he wishes to, no matter how offensive, without fear of retaliation by the university. preventing him from doing so would be a much greater concern than whatever he stated.
Rot demurred: "Tecs, the professoriate is a joke. I am reading some 'research' in education for a project here.
Plagiarism would be much better than what they write."
Rot, that junk you're reading? It's plagiarized.
I say hunt down the original source and kill him.
Le Pew: "No matter how you slice and dice it, Ward Churchill should be able to express anything he wishes to, no matter how offensive, without fear of retaliation by the university. preventing him from doing so would be a much greater concern than whatever he stated"
Huh, Gerbilinho, no one prevented Wart Churlshill from expressing anything he wished. However you slice and dice, that remains a hard, cold, fact. And he did so in shitloads for years, with "honors" and impunity. What got the thug into trouble was exactly what he got into trouble for: plagiarism, and fraud as to his academic credentials.
In academia you are only in danger of being fired for your views if you are Neokkonish or non-Pepean FCP. Wart had to go many fathoms down into academic corruption before it all became too silly to let go anymore.
By all means, Le Pew, feel free to hire him for the Versaillean University. He would cut a dashing figure as Chief of Native Amerikkkan Studies. While you are at it, bring in Pons and Fleischmann for your Chemistry Department, Hansen for your Institute of Climatology, Kahn to run your Philip Lenard Center for Applicable Physics, Chomsky as Dean of the Soros School of Business, Peter Singer as Distinguished Professor of Bioethics, Blagovich can head up the Foundation for Urban Renewal, and, of course, Mikey Moore would be a behemoth astride the Schultz School of Journalism.
We can trust that, with your Versailles, a University would be born which could do full justice to the Progressive and Pepean Plagiarizer.
A fit tribute to Pepe, indeed. Despite long experience, the inanity of Le Pew's pronunciamentos still manages to astound, now and then. If you read through his dogged defense of this absolute nullity, Ward Churchill, you'll get a glimpse at the abysmal vacuity (coated in a thick layer of vanity and know-nothingism) of the pinko mind.
Better regurge this time, Mr Rot -- at least now I understand what's about, without having to strain my already frayed neurons. At any rate, yes, reasonably argued piece, and I can see why you think it bolsters your (rather weakly argued) case. But read on:
The decision for Churchill will only further attenuate an already fraying relationship between the protections of academic freedom and their corollary obligations. Churchill is the poster boy for academic irresponsibility in both substance and style. That he wins today in court, helped somehow by his very notoriety, can only fortify the sense that anything goes.
Precisely my point. This bozo Churchill only brings disrepute to the professorate, and weakens its relative position in society (in a sort of parallel way to Madoff bringing disrepute to financiers). He lowers the bar, and has become the poster boy for the Pepes of this world, who think academic freedom = freedom to spew bullshit all day long with impunity, without actually doing something remotely of value.
...and firing him because of something stupid he said makes it easier for pinko administrations to dump who they don't like, tenured or not.
Also, your 'relative position' stuff is hooey, not some well-reasoned argument.
he said makes it easier for pinko administrations to dump who they don't like, tenured or not
right - that's the point of freedom speech. But it just doesn't compute among the Rabid Ones. I give up.
Mr Rot: Your buddy Ward (who you have been defending for the past few years almost as fervently as Pepe) was not fired for something stupid he said (though that was what got him noticed, indeed), but for what he did, namely, lie and dissemble. And, yes, sadly, his misdeeds are more likely to affect non-pinko profs (a dying breed in today's academia). But that's not a reason not to have thrown the book at him. He was -- and is -- a disgrace to the profession, and no amount of sophistry will change this incontrovertible fact.
Tecs, UC tried to fire Churchill for something he said. They would never have done anything to him for his 'professional' dishonesty because it's expected in his discipline.
As paradoxical as this may sound to you, Tecs, whole colleges at universities are devoted to bullshit and as AA wisely pointed out, the plagiarizer is small potatoes compared to the inventors of the bullshit they promulgate.
They should all be killed, imo, Churchill included, but not for saying things that piss off stupid woman presidents of universities, because that could be just about anything we say here (as Pepe pointed out).
Incidentally, Tecs, if you want to see some professional lying, check out a couple of my colleagues stats papers. They are all bullshit. Then go back to that Chronicle article about the Ohio Univ engineering dept.
Then check out Harvard. Then I'll show you some bravely wrong stuff in your colleagues' stuff in analysis.
Everyone is bullshit whether by design or because the gods are cruel.
Rot, let's get clear on a couple of points.
First, lying and being in error are not the same thing. A math paper has a mistake, but the author and reviewers did not note that mistake, then it is just a mistake. And throughout the history of science many many works will have mistakes, from trivial ones to major ones. If someone makes an undue number of mistakes, or makes crucial mistakes, then when found out people stop reading or listening to him, or tenure can be denied, and so on. The guy just isn't reliable. But that is very very different from plagiarizing [where you are stealing someone elses work and claming it for yourself, and know that you are doing so] or from fraud [where you know that you lying, about results or justification of results, and are going to try to con the readers]. If that happens it is not your competence that is questioned, it is your fundamental intellectual honesty. And that is what an academic code of conduct was originally all about. And what, on paper, and much like the US Constitution it may well be only a paper existence, it still is about.
Second, the Ward case was really very simple. The guy broke every piece of the code of academic conduct that happened not to suit his convenience. He lied about himself, he created degrees he never had worked for, never mind taken. He copied other people's work and claimed it for his own.
Now, he also built a career of pure anti-Ricain Pepeanism, sure, and sucked all the vicious dicks of the current political fashion, but that was no problem, at all, with the University-- as long as [a] it wan't too widely noticed by the taxpaying Colordo public, and [b] no one was noting, or fussing over, the fact he is a fraud. It was such a little problem that the University saw him tenured, and promoted, and given more funds, all the while.
Now, when he made the mistake of prematurely pushing himself into the national limelight [should have waited for Obamakles to be crowned. Ward would be Dean by now, if he had a bit of foresight], the public notoriety made the University uncomfortable for the first time [they definitely gave no evidence they were uncomfortable before], and when the fraud aspect was made apparent it robbed them of any legitimate grounds for claiming he was a good citizen of Academe and that this was a 'free speech" case. Then they had no choice but to act. Or, rather, the alternative, which was to fess up to the Colorado citizenry that as long as one bought the Party Line one could violate every academic standard with impunity, even be honored for it, was considered too painful..... An alternative I do not think they would be so ashamed to admit to today.
There have been plenty of cases of people being shitcanned from Universities, or had an academic career denied them, for political reasons of the University faculty, in the last few decades. But none were for espousing views consistent with those of Wart. If had played the game as it is usually played, shown an ounce of forbearance, he would have been fine. If he had not been a fraud he would have been fine. But in both cases he did otherwise, and this made him vulnerable. When he chose to embrace notoriety, that vulnerability did him in. And deservedly so.
Look, Rot, it is true that there are many others like him who are yet thriving in academe. But he still deserves what he got. Just like the fact that too many ugly murderers get to walk free doesn't change the fact that Justice has been done when a Ted Bundy gets fried.
Wart got by for too long, and then Justice was done. Instead of joing Le Pew in wasting time and energy in bemoaning the "tragedy" that not all Pepeans get away with it, I choose to celebrate that little piece of fucking good news.
Very well put, AA! I think you summed it best (much better than I), and Mr Rot owes you a chilled out VCP for having the facts of life explained to him so incisively.
Now, since I can't improve on what AA said, let me try another tack: Why is that Mr Rot considers tenure so sacrosanct? As he himself explained to me more than once -- it's not, especially if some parent starts complaining about a random prof inviting a student for tea, or if another prof gets too much in the face of other faculty with his red Jaguar or something. Ways and means can be found (and have been found on occasion) to get around the supposedly ironclad tenure commitment, which, in fact, does have all sorts of loopholes.
OK, having said that as a matter of setup, how about we look at the present situation, boys? As you may have noticed with your peripheral vision, every month for many months now, some 600,000 jobs or so are lost -- people get fired at the rate of 20,000 a day. Do you think you'll find much sympathy for this big fat idiot Ward, who hasn't done anything in his whole life but spew bullshit, and comes now back whining at the injustice of it all, after he got shit-canned, while the peons had to actually mop the floors and flip the burgers so he could live that privileged life, while spitting everyone else in the face, and showing them the finger? C'mon, Rot, get real. I know many other deserving souls who can do a much better job at teaching and research than this idiot Ward, and who don't have tenure. Why not rejoice at the salutary cleanup (be it as small as it was), and wish those fresh ones to climb up the totem pole, instead of rooting for that old bastard to get back in the saddle?
Very well put, AA! I think you summed it best (much better than I), and Mr Rot owes you a chilled out VCP for having the facts of life explained to him so incisively.
Need a wipe for your nose, tec ?
A lot of these 'errors' come about because the big-shots are too big to get a real referee job. Concomitantly, the little guy gets fucked over.
Call Biss and say hi for me, Tecs.
Mr Rot: why are you trying to drag me in another direction -- namely, wrong stuff in published papers? That's a separate issue, having nothing (or almost nothing) to do with good ole Ward. Of course, he also made mistakes in his papers (duhhh), but they were all busllshit to start with, on a bullshit subject, so who cares? You wanna talk about mistakes in real papers, about real stuff (like, the Coanda effect) -- then start a fresh thread, and state your case. But don't mix things up, or you'll give me a headache!
Pepe: It is my long-held habit to give credit when credit is due, and to mark in red bullshit. You consistently get an F- for clarity and logic from me (sorry, old chap, that's life). I happen though to appreciate the tight reasoning behind AA's arguments, quite often. Sometimes this happens with Mr Rot, too, but he's more erratic -- it's either hit it out of the ballpark, or swing and miss by a mile with him.
You consistently get an F- for clarity and logic from me (sorry, old chap, that's life)
A crushing blow to pepe's ego here.
Post a Comment