Whitmer spills the beans:
“…but one must actually transgress.”
The committee at CU found that Churchill was a Transgressive scholar and gave him high marks. He was investigated and judged by his peers to be guilty of “falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, failure to comply with established and serious deviation from accepted practices”. He got a pretty high Couric score—no status quo here.
Churchill did actually transgress, so what’s Whitmer so exercised about? The judgment of the committee should have been met with jubilation—acknowledgement of the magnitude of Churchill’s various actual transgressions.
-
Can the committee be transgressive, too?
Yes indeed they can, and were. One of their claims was actually taken back when it was shown that they cited the wrong page and denied the existence of a quote that was actually there. Of course, they didn't allow the review of their own work that was attempted to continue.
Bogus identifies some actual transgression:
“…denied the existence of a quote that was actually there.”
You and Whitmer must have turned cartwheels in joy that the committee rose above the status quo and became transgressive--and actual transgression at that.
-
I don't recall that an independent review of the committee was a feature of the process. Which rule says that this is included?
Doctorate defense committees don't subject their work to independent review either. Another tentacle of the same hydra. Academia, etc.
Anyway, I don't need a committee or a specialist to tell me that the Mandan smallpox blanket claim was fabricated. The claim is illogical on its face, and for some reason, the Churchill rashly gave a recorded interview where he could not point out the evidence in the book he used. The reporters opened the book to the page he cited, and he just hemmed and hawed and got pissed. Squirm-inducing stuff.
That's not a missed detail, that's a genuine whopper.
I was talking about the research misconduct complaint filed by STAF members and supporters against the committee.
Tyndale clarifies:
“I was talking about the research misconduct complaint filed by STAF members and supporters against the committee.”
Not unless you’re Bogus, you weren’t. Have we got another multiple personality disorder going on?
-
Bogus...Tyndale...Whitmer...Churchill...
What difference does it make?
Another sockpuppet caught. Rick Ellersberg Greenwald Bogus Tyndale Churchill...
Own up to your bungling, Bogus.
Earl asks:
“What difference does it make?”
It gives us insight into the character of the writer. Churchill’s life has been based on deception, scratch most any facet and you’ll find some version of the shell game. The little churchills seem similarly predisposed, it’s the core weakness of the whole bunch--for example, giving rise to things like the Whitmer Imperative (one must actually transgress).
It belies a lack of confidence in one’s identity, argument and core principles.
-
The CU committee made a minor error about whether or not a book mentioned a particular Indian tribe, which error the committee acknowledged.
That doesn't change the fact that Churchill fabricated a smallpox blanket genocide and attributed it to John Smith. He still has come up with any evidence to back up his accusation.
The CU committee's error hardly exonerates Churchill's falsification of said book in support of his Jiohn Smith fabrication.
Whatever minor stumbling there might have been by the CU investigative committee, at least they got the job done. They publicly exposed a small but important part of Churchill's large volume of deceptive academic writings. For that contribution, honest and hard-working scholars, especially in the areas of ethnic studies and Indian studies, will be forever grateful.
Finally. I thought maybe you guys would catch on to the time stamps matching on tryworks and PB. For the record, I am not Whitmer or Churchil. I am Tyndale, Etchemenedy and Bogus... and I feel like there was another one. After you banned me the last time and then lifted it I figured I shouldn't just jump back in under the same name, plus it got Fred to stop spouting his preformed gibberish at me for a while. I love that you all see this as a sign of a psychological disorder, it's a demonstration of your love of melodrama.
That remark about a mental disorder was an obvious throwaway. Nobody really thinks you have a mental disorder. Kind of dumb for you to say so, in fact.
Character defects, well, that's a whole different subject.
You have written a number of really dumb things here; e.g., the utter flub of your patronizing attempt to correct the Spanish grammar of someone who is fluent in it. The interesting thing is, when called on these sorts of things, you say everybody was slow to get the joke.
Nobody would act that dumb on purpose, especially somebody who so badly wants to believe in their own intellectual superiority. Your reach exceeds your grasp and you can't face it.
Now, you've made another comical error. Failing to keep on top of one's username could happen to anybody, but what really makes it comedy is your characteristic squirming. You didn'd do something dumb, everybody else did. Sure.
Continue to shrivel, by all means.
Of course, there's also the elephant in the room: that you defend an academic fraud, charlatan, and all around lousy guy.
Bogus/Tydnale/Etchemenedy's denial of being Whitmer/Churchill is evidence that he is. His defense of a proven liar/charlatan/fraud only adds to that evidence.
By that logic, Churchill's lack of evidence for his smallpox blanket genocide is proof that one did occur. Come to think on it, I believe that Churchill has made an argument similar to this...
Funny how that works, eh, Noj?
“By that logic, Churchill's lack of evidence for his smallpox blanket genocide is proof that one did occur.”
Oh, THAT logic. 911 was an inside job, the Mandan genocide was an inside job. Colonialism is an inside job. Connect the dots, it’s all a slam-dunk, if you get my drift.
-
Thanks at least for not succumbing to Earl's paranoia.
Picking which pseudonymous commenter might actually be Churchill is a fool's errand, like trying to separate "bad Hemingway" entries from actual Hemingway.
It suits me fine if you don't understand the approach Sherman. Anyway, I don't defend Churchill, he does that himself, along with his lawyer's help. I just get some kicks by dropping in on you guys and joining the shit flinging circle jerks you call discussions.
"I just get some kicks by dropping in on you guys and joining the shit flinging circle jerks you call discussions."
Discussions? I'm afraid, Theo, you've been badly misinformed. But you and your lawyer can continue to play with your shit if you want.
-
Fine. You've convinced me Fred. I inferred recently that you were immune to the paranoia of confusing me with Churchill, but you've just proven me wrong. In the face of that proof, I give up. Here's the last joke, in case anyone's still listening. The last leg of the global financial system has just fallen, this week. As things stand today, it must soon hit the mainstream news, but hasn't yet. The food industry is collapsing.
Let that sink in.
The global food market is failing.
And you all are talking about standards in academia.
That's what makes me laugh- hysterically. The last lynch pin of society, the one that secures sustenance, is rotting as we speak. How are you spending your time? That's why I laugh when I make mistakes here, it's not important. That's why I laugh at your fevered tones, your practices robotic responses, because laughing is all we have left as long as we remain so distracted. Food. Think about it, and do some lexus nexus digging on the manner, then you'll understand why I keep laughing at you just as I make an ass out of myself.
All that we talk about -- here.
Has it occurred to you that the degeneration of U.S. college standards contributes to global stupidity? That in some small way this helps empower individuals who have nothing to contribute to problem solving?
Uh, STP, there is no need to tell us that you don't understand the global food market. Certainly academia has nothing to offer to address distortions in the agriculture market caused by politically motivated, economically foolish practices like biofuel production.
Yeah, fuel ethanol from corn is truly a crock. No cropland should be devoted to that, or to biodiesel. If biofuel can't be produced at a profit from discarded material, it shouldn't be done at all.
I think the federal ethanol mandate is going to be tossed out pretty soon.
Ethanol From Cellulose: A General Review:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcr...u02/v5-
017.html
ethanol is not politically motivated in the environmentalist sense. It is not a big movement arising out from the powers of persuasion of the restaurant frying oil biodiesel crowd. If that were true, you'd see at least a few more of their suggestions being taken up and everyone turning vegetarian. It is only politically motivated by the agriculture subsidy lobby, and it is nearly completely explained by the high cost of oil and gas - which naturally is speculatively influenced.
For once I agree with you - corn ethanol is a gift to big agriculture.
I disagree about energy prices being "naturally" driven by speculation. Price of gas and oil is set by supply and demand.
STP is worried about me:
“The last lynch pin of society, the one that secures sustenance, is rotting as we speak. How are you spending your time?”
Well, a lot of it has gone into a revamping the irrigation system on the back forty. It’s a good water year (the first in maybe a decade) and I want to take advantage of the runoff. Lexus nexus isn’t the answer, row crops are.
-
What good is abundant water without the academic background to deconstuct its meaning?
“What good is abundant water without the academic background to deconstuct its meaning?”
Food production on most southwestern reservations has dropped to an all time low, the old timers being the only ones with the knowledge and will to raise crops. Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, Taos Pueblo, Acoma, San Carlos, O'odham, etc.—the corn and beans fields have vanished while convenience stores multiplied.
Maybe a ES work study program cleaning ditches, hoeing and bringing in a crop would help to clarify things. Plenty of time to deconstruct most everything.
-
Source?
"Maybe a ES work study program cleaning ditches, hoeing and bringing in a crop would help to clarify things. Plenty of time to deconstruct most everything."
Roger Sandall--to whose blog PB recently linked regarding Australia's "Sorry Day"--also has a nice piece about the basic maintanence vs. deconstructionist dialectical dilemma faced by indegenous peoples:
http://www.rogersandall.com/Spik...ion-
Express.php
Commenting by HaloScan
