Librarian attacked by profs for promoting 'Marketing of Evil'

[insein]

I'm open for polite discussion. I'm not the one throwing around terms like "libs" am I? Though I am kind of curious why accurate definitions offend you so very much.

But thanks for letting me know that only a right wing pov is welcome on the board. I figured moderation, stated without rancor is acceptable in any circle.

Cheers.

You called Rush Limbaugh a liar and said that that speaks for my credibility. The irony is that it spells out yours clearly. If you make an accusation against a person with incredible accuracy such as Rush (its documented how accurate his opinions are on his website) then you had better come with some specific evidence to prove your point. Once again though, you prove my point about the seriousness of the charge (Rush is a liar) being more important than the nature of your evidence (none).

If you think only a "Right Wing" POV is allowed on this site then why have you not been banned? Also perhaps you should use the "search" feature and see for yourself what kinds of POV's are allowed on this site before making yourself look more foolish than you already have.

As for the sexual harassment charge, I don't see anything there that would clearly define how this librarian specifically harrassed anyone of those faculty members beyond having a difference of opinion from their own. Since this doesnt sit well with these people, they needed to find a charge that will get him fired from his position. So rather than debating the librarian on the differences of opinions, they chose to silence him through loose accusations conjured up through a meeting of faculty heads with the sole intent of quieting the opposition. Sounds very worthy of the time of the University administration.

So again i state, its the seriousness of the charge and not the nature of the evidence. What will happen to the faculty members that brought these accusations when the evidence is not found to properly "convict" the librarian of sexual harrassment? Nothing. They had to investigate the seriousness of the charge because you need to take sexual harrassment seriously but no reprimand or consequence will be brought upon the offended party should the evidence be non-existent.

 

[Annie]

I am certainly open to changing my position with respect to certain things, given facts that make me change my view and actually did with respect to issues like gun control. But the way I see things, by the time we hit our 30's, we've got a particular way of looking at the world. You and I just see it differently. I don't expect to change anyone's ideology...don't expect anyone to change mine. I figure on a messageboard it's all about having civil debate, keeping the mind sharp and having some fun.

Here's the difference. If you were to supply me with credible links, yeah even NY times, I would consider. You on the other hand, well I guess the terrorists would have to blow up the DNC and then the administration would have to prove it so, by which time it would be too late...

 

[Avatar4321]

This is outright riduclou! How on earth do you sexually harass someone for suggesting that the read a freakin book! What the heck is this nation coming to if Universities don't allow people to read books of differing point of view without false charges being brought up? Let's just censor anything we disagree with right?

This is ridiculous. We have a large segment of our society wanting us to march back into the dark ages. I suppose actually suggesting that people read Hitler's literature to get a historical perspective of what he endoctrinated people with would be forbiden too? Or how about the communist manifesto which has caused more death than any book in the history of the world?

Course not, but have a book that suggests we live morally and espouse decent standards and its hate speech.

 

[Dr Grump]

Cheers back to you, but no equating our ability to look at differing pov, in lieu of our own. I do, often. Have even changed my perspective. You however, so far, have proven wedded to an agenda. Which is cool, I just read you different, at first. No harm, no foul.

Interesting you should say the above, because I see you wedded to an agenda, too. Now, I haven't read all your thousands of posts, only most of those since I arrived on these boards, but of those I have read, your agenda seems set in stone. Maybe when saying the above you have on rose-tinted glasses as to your own position. To accuse others of, what seems to me, what you do yourself, is hypocrisy IMO. At least you are civil about it...

 

[Dr Grump]

This is outright riduclou! How on earth do you sexually harass someone for suggesting that the read a freakin book! What the heck is this nation coming to if Universities don't allow people to read books of differing point of view without false charges being brought up? Let's just censor anything we disagree with right?.

I concur. Very strange conclusion to come to. Maybe because one of the books is allegedly homophobic, they are somehow equating that to sexual harassment. A long bow to draw IMO...

 

[Annie]

Interesting you should say the above, because I see you wedded to an agenda, too. Now, I haven't read all your thousands of posts, only most of those since I arrived on these boards, but of those I have read, your agenda seems set in stone. Maybe when saying the above you have on rose-tinted glasses as to your own position. To accuse others of, what seems to me, what you do yourself, is hypocrisy IMO. At least you are civil about it...

You would have to wade through, as I'm not about to do for you. You sir or madame are a loser of the nth degree.

 

[Dr Grump]

You would have to wade through, as I'm not about to do for you. You sir or madame are a loser of the nth degree.

hhhhmmmm..how civil. Nice to know my gut feeling was right about you....

Moderators are not allowed to flame members, therefore members cannot flame the moderators. I expect the moderators to be held to a different standard than the rest of the board, and I also expect they will get the respect they deserve in return. Flaming of a moderator will result in a warning. On the 3rd warning your account will be banned.

 

[Dr Grump]

BTW Kathi, is you are a winner, I'm glad I'm a loser...

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah, so Kathi uses her rep power to take away points. How, um, mature...

 

[Annie]

Ah, so Kathi uses her rep power to take away points. How, um, mature...

Whatever. You sir, bring nothing.

 

[insein]

Ah, so Kathi uses her rep power to take away points. How, um, mature...

And you cry about a person you've never seen and will never meet in real life taking away rep points that have zero meaning outside of this site and in the real world in general with witty 1st grade retorts on par with "i know you are but what am I?"

Who's the immature one?

 

[Annie]

And you cry about a person you've never seen and will never meet in real life taking away rep points that have zero meaning outside of this site and in the real world in general with witty 1st grade retorts on par with "i know you are but what am I?"

Who's the immature one?

LOL! No one, not one, has said, "Don't give me your points, you have too many..."

In this case, I only regret that I can't take away as many as I can give...

 

[Dr Grump]

And you cry about a person you've never seen and will never meet in real life taking away rep points that have zero meaning outside of this site and in the real world in general with witty 1st grade retorts on par with "i know you are but what am I?"

Who's the immature one?

You've missed my point. I see these boards as a place to talk and jaw in a mature, civilised manner. Kathi obviously doesn't see it that way. If they have zero meaning, get rid of them. I can hardly see the point of them. It seems to be if you are a neocon or conservative, you have lotsa points...if you are not lock-step in with that agenda you are on red. You need a repping system to distinguish between neocons and the rest? What's that about being mature again? Also, jeff set the rules about moderators flaming. Take it up with him...

Kathianne

In this case, I only regret that I can't take away as many as I can give...

Because you're so mature, right?

 

[insein]

You've missed my point. I see these boards as a place to talk and jaw in a mature, civilised manner. Kathi obviously doesn't see it that way. If they have zero meaning, get rid of them. I can hardly see the point of them. It seems to be if you are a neocon or conservative, you have lotsa points...if you are not lock-step in with that agenda you are on red. You need a repping system to distinguish between neocons and the rest? What's that about being mature again? Also, jeff set the rules about moderators flaming. Take it up with him...

Kathianne

In this case, I only regret that I can't take away as many as I can give...

Because you're so mature, right?

And if you have a problem with a mod, PM them. Don't make a post that is contrary to the point of the topic at hand and side track the conversation.

 

[Dr Grump]

And if you have a problem with a mod, PM them. Don't make a post that is contrary to the point of the topic at hand and side track the conversation.

Don't think I'd get anywhere with her. Fair enough re the last part...

 

[Avatar4321]

Guys lets not get sidetracked. This is an important issue to discuss.

 

[jillian]

LOL! No one, not one, has said, "Don't give me your points, you have too many..."

In this case, I only regret that I can't take away as many as I can give...

I'm kind of curious. I saw the post in question and it didn't seem to be either rude, or disruptive or spam, so I'm wondering why it would be something that would cost points at all.

 

[insein]

I'm kind of curious. I saw the post in question and it didn't seem to be either rude, or disruptive or spam, so I'm wondering why it would be something that would cost points at all.

Its distracting the topic at hand as aparent by no one speaking of it.

 

[NATO AIR]

I don't see this as Right wing POV issue. I sit up here and criticize Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Frist a lot of the time. No one ever shut me up, and we manage to have intelligent conversation and idea exchange 99.9% of the time, until the trolls come through bitching about rep and right wing.

Back on the issue, this kind of intimidation on campuses is very worrying. If the authorities on campus don't investigate and handle this properly, there needs to be a higher power (i.e. a whole squadron of bloggers, pundits and politicians) who make sure it gets looked at properly the 2nd time.

Look at the Yale fiasco, which is one even a lot of liberals and moderates raised a fit over, and Yale to this day continues to try to play dumb and at the same time, "elite", over the outrage of the masses and the government at their coddling of a Taliban war criminal.

 

[jillian]

I don't see this as Right wing POV issue. I sit up here and criticize Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Frist a lot of the time. No one ever shut me up, and we manage to have intelligent conversation and idea exchange 99.9% of the time, until the trolls come through bitching about rep and right wing.

Back on the issue, this kind of intimidation on campuses is very worrying. If the authorities on campus don't investigate and handle this properly, there needs to be a higher power (i.e. a whole squadron of bloggers, pundits and politicians) who make sure it gets looked at properly the 2nd time.

Look at the Yale fiasco, which is one even a lot of liberals and moderates raised a fit over, and Yale to this day continues to try to play dumb and at the same time, "elite", over the outrage of the masses and the government at their coddling of a Taliban war criminal.

No one should be intimidated for what they believe. But perhaps there's a difference between someone advancing acceptance of diverse groups and someone disseminating material which tries to marginalize a segment of the population, like gays?

Just throwing that out there....

Also, I'm not sure what "Yale fiasco" you're referring to.