Is Judy Rebick Being Silenced?
F. Yew
http://cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick000830.html
but it's not there anymore. Her hard-hitting, accurate, and timely
column was called "Harris and Ecker put Stalin to shame."
I hope the top brass at the CBC aren't screwing around with her and her
ability to speak her mind. I hope she is not being silenced.
Contact the CBC yourself and ask them what happened to Rebick's column.
F. Yew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where is Judy Rebick's article? It was at:
>
> http://cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick000830.html
>
> but it's not there anymore. Her hard-hitting, accurate, and timely
> column was called "Harris and Ecker put Stalin to shame."
>
> I hope the top brass at the CBC aren't screwing around with her and
her
> ability to speak her mind. I hope she is not being silenced.
>
> Contact the CBC yourself and ask them what happened to Rebick's
column.
That old cow has such a small and goofy audience (Yew) that she could
stand up and shout that she is God and no one (Us) would give a damn.
Who cares?
ran...@my-deja.com
> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
It is being used as toilette paper.
I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
Jack Plant
wrote:
>>
>>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
>>
>>It is being used as toilette paper.
>>
>>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
>
>[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend or
>neighbour's dictionary.
>
>[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with your
>political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
>air-head.
...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
Jack Plant
Freedom Party
"My name is Treetop, and I'm higher than you'll ever be.
I'm married to my roots here, still I feel that I am free."
Widespread Panic
(Great band,.....ya gotta hear their cd "Till The Medicine Takes"!!! Awesome!
"http://www.freedomparty.org"
ran...@my-deja.com
Jack Plant wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:29:59 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
> >>
> >>It is being used as toilette paper.
> >>
> >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
> >
> >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend or
> >neighbour's dictionary.
Thanks for the spelling lesson
> >
> >[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with your
> >political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
> >air-head.
>
> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
>
> Jack Plant
>
Jack: She truly IS a pig.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
Even at the corpse they know the stink of libel when it wafts up from
the stye inhabited by Ribbit et al.
Why am I forced to pay for this waste of water who sole intention is to
destroy my life for some yet to be imagined victim repayment plan? Why
do I thru my taxes have to provide the where with all for this yapping
marxist fool to foment hate of men and the trying to be upwardly mobile?
If I were to rant in a mass media outlet the way that sad old cow does,
I would be charged with a nebulous hate crime and separated from my
family and source of income thru the courts and official womyn hounding.
How is it that when the sexist attacks come from a marxist cow on
publicly funded public airwaves are good and for me to stand up and
oppose the old gas bag with the same vocabulary I am guilty of a hate
crime?
How is this possible?
The fellow travellers at the corpse give her the opportunity with my
hard earned money.
She is disgusting.
John Carrick
>> >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
>> >>
>> >>It is being used as toilette paper.
>> >>
>> >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
>> >
>> >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend or
>> >neighbour's dictionary.
>
No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
>> >[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with your
>> >political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
>> >air-head.
>>
>> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
Since you have asked my opinion, I'll tell you that I consider Judy
Rebick to be courageous, highly informed, and very intelligent.
If she were not all of those things, she would not have annoyed you so
much, that you would forget the good manners that your mother taught
you, and you would treat her like the lady she is.
When you call her a "pig", she wins, since you are admitting that you
cannot deal with the substance of her arguments, and must resort to
childish name-calling.
(I also name-call here from time to time, but I do it along with a
masterful analysis of my opponents' overly selfish perspectives.
Name-calling *alone* labels any poster a loser.)
((And if you take that last paragraph totally seriously, you have a
problem recognising self-deprecation.))
John Carrick
>> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
>
People who make no attempt to deal with the substance of a public
figure's positions and arguments, and who offer nothing but insult,
are demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy.
When you call these women "pigs", without taking the time to critique
ideas of theirs which you oppose, you demonstrate how far above you
they are in every respect.
Stop being so damned lazy. If these voices from the left offend you,
have the integrity to say why they are in error.
John Carrick
>In article <8p47nd$ng$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Where is Judy Rebick's article? It was at:
>
>
>
>Even at the corpse they know the stink of libel when it wafts up from
>the stye inhabited by Ribbit et al.
>
>Why am I forced to pay for this waste of water who sole intention is to
>destroy my life for some yet to be imagined victim repayment plan? Why
>do I thru my taxes have to provide the where with all for this yapping
>marxist fool to foment hate of men and the trying to be upwardly mobile?
>If I were to rant in a mass media outlet the way that sad old cow does,
>I would be charged with a nebulous hate crime and separated from my
>family and source of income thru the courts and official womyn hounding.
>How is it that when the sexist attacks come from a marxist cow on
>publicly funded public airwaves are good and for me to stand up and
>oppose the old gas bag with the same vocabulary I am guilty of a hate
>crime?
>
>How is this possible?
A more cogent question is where was your brain, when you typed that
nonsensical mish-mash? Out for some R & R?
It is worrying to me that your posts are becoming more and more
bizarre.
Are you eating a balanced diet, and getting seven hours sleep a night?
Take two aspirin and call someone else in the morning. For God's sake
don't call me!
Andrew Golebiowski
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
> >
> >Hell, yeah! Her and Michelle Landsberg.
>
> People who make no attempt to deal with the substance of a public
> figure's positions and arguments, and who offer nothing but insult,
> are demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy.
Public figure? my butt!!!
As for the "substance" it is rather difficult to deal with when there is
no substance at all.
> When you call these women "pigs", without taking the time to critique
> ideas of theirs which you oppose, you demonstrate how far above you
> they are in every respect.
Had she presented her "views" at her own expense... oh, well wishfull
thinking.
She IS a pig... and at the public trough.
> Stop being so damned lazy. If these voices from the left offend you,
> have the integrity to say why they are in error.
How about - for all possible reasons?
Andrew
Honest John
wrote:
>
>>John Carrick wrote: (snip)
>
>Excuse me, but if you are going to snip *everything* I wrote - thus
>losing the benefit of my glorious prose stylings - why the hell
>do you include my name in your scurrilous post at all?
He snipped out all the rubbish. Your name was the only thing left.
Andrew P. Boulton
jims...@my-deja.com
>
> http://cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick000830.html
>
> but it's not there anymore. Her hard-hitting, accurate, and timely
Huh? Is this the same Judy Rebick that had (or has?) a column in the
paper? The only time she is hard-hitting is when she falls out of her
chair! As for her accuracy, her record speaks for itself, ergo there is
precious little accuracy.
> column was called "Harris and Ecker put Stalin to shame."
>
> I hope the top brass at the CBC aren't screwing around with her and
her
> ability to speak her mind. I hope she is not being silenced.
Why would the CBC silence her? They are cut from the same cloth.
> Contact the CBC yourself and ask them what happened to Rebick's
column.
That would be a waste of time.
jims...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >> >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
> >> >>
> >> >>It is being used as toilette paper.
> >> >>
> >> >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
> >> >
> >> >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend
or
> >> >neighbour's dictionary.
> >
> >Thanks for the spelling lesson.
>
> No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
> the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
So....who has been helping you all along?
jims...@my-deja.com
"Andrew P. Boulton" <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote:
> Jack Plant wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:29:59 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John
Carrick)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
> > >>
> > >>It is being used as toilette paper.
> > >>
> > >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
> > >
> > >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend or
> > >neighbour's dictionary.
> > >
> > >[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with your
> > >political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
> > >air-head.
> >
> > ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
>
It has been a theory of mine that feminism was invented so that ugly
women can get money from men too. Rebick and Landsberg do nothing to
disprove that theory.
>
> Andrew
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~cometx
jims...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
[excellent stuff *not* scribbled out by Carrick, snipped]
> A more cogent question is where was your brain, when you typed that
> nonsensical mish-mash? Out for some R & R?
>
> It is worrying to me that your posts are becoming more and more
> bizarre.
>
> Are you eating a balanced diet, and getting seven hours sleep a night?
>
> Take two aspirin and call someone else in the morning. For God's sake
> don't call me!
Hey Carrick, your reply reminded me of an earlier post in this thread
where someone you might know said: "People who make no attempt to deal
with the substance of a public figure's positions and arguments, and
who offer nothing but insult, are demonstrating their intellectual
bankruptcy."
The same principle is also applied to articles posted in newsgroups. By
your very own definition, you are intellectually bankrupt.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
>
> >In article <8p47nd$ng$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Where is Judy Rebick's article? It was at:
Carrickature, you old elitist bag o'carp. You stink.
Andrew P. Boulton
>
> In article <39B7FF...@idontlikespamidirect.com>,
> "Andrew P. Boulton" <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote:
> > Jack Plant wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:29:59 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John
> Carrick)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
> > > >>
> > > >>It is being used as toilette paper.
> > > >>
> > > >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
> > > >
> > > >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend or
> > > >neighbour's dictionary.
> > > >
> > > >[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with your
> > > >political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
> > > >air-head.
> > >
> > > ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
> >
> > Hell, yeah! Her and Michelle Landsberg.
>
> It has been a theory of mine that feminism was invented so that ugly
> women can get money from men too. Rebick and Landsberg do nothing to
> disprove that theory.
ROFL * 3!!!! Good one! :-)
Valentine Michael Smith
>Where is Judy Rebick's article? It was at:
>
>http://cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick000830.html
>
>but it's not there anymore. Her hard-hitting, accurate, and timely
>column was called "Harris and Ecker put Stalin to shame."
>
>I hope the top brass at the CBC aren't screwing around with her and her
>ability to speak her mind. I hope she is not being silenced.
>
>Contact the CBC yourself and ask them what happened to Rebick's column.
>
I did contact them, with my disgust in an e-mail after reading her
silliness. Maybe they actually listened to reason - doubt it.
**********************
n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
that it is not he or she or them or it
that you belong to
Robert Zimmerman
Valentine Michael Smith
I should know to not believe anything you type, it is still there.
Pity, only in Canada you say.
**********************
F. Yew
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:47:30 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I should know to not believe anything you type, it is still there.
>
> Pity, only in Canada you say.
Her column is NOT at:
That's where all of CBC's columnists are. Rebick's column was there
last week but it was removed after several days.
I believe she's being silenced by the top brass at the CBC. Shame on
them!
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> noth...@spammer.com wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:47:30 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I should know to not believe anything you type, it is still there.
> >
> > Pity, only in Canada you say.
>
> Her column is NOT at:
>
> http://cbc.ca/news/
>
> That's where all of CBC's columnists are. Rebick's column was there
> last week but it was removed after several days.
>
> I believe she's being silenced by the top brass at the CBC. Shame on
> them!
Yew brainless little wretch. Enjoy it. Silence is golden.
If Ribbit has been deleted by the CBC it is due to fear from a libel
suit, oh midget brained one.
Half witted jackasses like Ribbit and Yew have podiums to spew filth
and hate. Unfortunately it is me who has to pay for it. I do not need
that stinking old sexist, bigoted collectivist cow telling me how to
live on public air waves paid for by me. I am under no obligation to
provide the platform for her corrupt and evil mouthings. If that
slattern wants to get on top of the dung heap and shout to the sky,
fine. Let her stand on her own dung. Or yours. But I will not pay for
it.
Right Yew?
Valentine Michael Smith
>
>Half witted jackasses like Ribbit and Yew have podiums to spew filth
>and hate. Unfortunately it is me who has to pay for it. I do not need
>that stinking old sexist, bigoted collectivist cow telling me how to
>live on public air waves paid for by me. I am under no obligation to
>provide the platform for her corrupt and evil mouthings. If that
>slattern wants to get on top of the dung heap and shout to the sky,
>fine. Let her stand on her own dung. Or yours. But I will not pay for
>it.
They have guns to make sure you pay, so you will pay. Eventually they
will be gone, but for now you will pay, in more ways than one.
John Carrick
>> >Thanks for the spelling lesson.
>>
>> No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
>> the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
>
>So....who has been helping you all along?
*That* nonsense again? I tire of encountering so many people here,
who suggest that their problem with me is that I lack intellligence.
I demonstrably do not.
Face it. Your problem with me is that I attack your political values.
Stop suggesting that I'm stupid, and deal with my objections to your
overly self-centred approach to life.
Unlike you, I don't assume that anyone who disagrees me cannot
possibly know what he is talking about. I understand enough about
human cognition to appreciate that two people of considerable
intelligence may well differ in their politics.
Before I call anyone "stupid" here, he or she must make a quite
mindless statement - something like calling Hitler a socialist.
A major cognitive weakness to which we are all subect is not being
able to see evidence that our thinking is wrong. This is what allows
us to view a politician that we admire as a hero with no faults, and
to view as a demon, without a single redeeming feature, the leader of
a poltical party that we oppose. (In fact both leaders that we
support and those that we oppose are a mixture of strengths and
weaknesses.)
The way the human brain works, it is extremely difficult for people to
tell when their thinking is wrong. And that accounts for most of the
garbage posts that appear here. Most contriburors to this newsgroup
show no signs of possessing any critical faculty, when it comes to
assessing their own opinions.
Barry Gaudet
:>> >Thanks for the spelling lesson.
:>>
:>> No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
:>> the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
:>
:>So....who has been helping you all along?
: *That* nonsense again? I tire of encountering so many people here,
: who suggest that their problem with me is that I lack intellligence.
: I demonstrably do not.
: Face it. Your problem with me is that I attack your political values.
No. It's that you _attack_. Think about it.
--
'I can't lead and I won't follow.'
John Carrick
>> >> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
>> >
>> >Hell, yeah! Her and Michelle Landsberg.
>>
>> People who make no attempt to deal with the substance of a public
>> figure's positions and arguments, and who offer nothing but insult,
>> are demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy.
>
>Public figure? my butt!!!
Oh, stop being ridiculous. You know who Judy Rebick is. You know who
Michelle Landsberg is. The criterion for being a public figure is
that your name is widely recognised.
As for your "butt"...it's your problem. If you ate more sensibly it
would be a considerably smaller one.
>As for the "substance" it is rather difficult to deal with when there is
>no substance at all.
More nonsense. Are you so bloody mindless that you consider all ideas
that differ from your own to be without substance?
That would make you hopelessly dim-witted. Others are as entitled to
their opinions as you are to yours.
The fact that someone disagrees with *you* does not automatically make
his or her point of view invalid. Your take on life does not
represent the ultimate in political perspicacity. After you have
spoken there is still room for discussion.
>> When you call these women "pigs", without taking the time to critique
>> ideas of theirs which you oppose, you demonstrate how far above you
>> they are in every respect.
>Had she presented her "views" at her own expense... oh, well wishfull
>thinking.
What the hell are you talking about? People from all walks of life,
and with a broad range of political opinion are seen and heard on
C.B.C. television...as they ought to be! It is a public forum for
ideas - all ideas, not just ideas that will appeal to right-wing
extremists with their eyes too close together.
Speaking of people with their eyes to close together, I don't imagine
you squeal in anger when coverage of Stockwell Day appears on The
National.
>She IS a pig... and at the public trough.
No, but you are certainly a boor. You haven't the damnedest idea
where Judy Rebick's income originates. And you would certainly not
object if some vicious right-wing extremist appeared on C.B.C. with
another tribute to over-selfishness.
>> Stop being so damned lazy. If these voices from the left offend you,
>> have the integrity to say why they are in error.
>
>How about - for all possible reasons?
No, that is a lazy evasion.
If you don't get some substance into your posts, I won't be the only
one who starts to ignore them.
John Carrick
>It has been a theory of mine that feminism was invented so that ugly
>women can get money from men too. Rebick and Landsberg do nothing to
>disprove that theory.
What bullshit! You are a sexist smooth-brain.
No wonder that you vote neo-conservative.
John Carrick
>Hey Carrick,...
[1] I am *Mr.* Carrick to you, you egregious boor.
[2] The nominative address requires a comma. It is, "Hey, Mr.
Carrick..."
Make some attempt to punctuate properly, can't you?
>... your reply reminded me of an earlier post in this thread
>where someone you might know said: "People who make no attempt to deal
>with the substance of a public figure's positions and arguments, and
>who offer nothing but insult, are demonstrating their intellectual
>bankruptcy."
Oh? What public figure's positions did I fail to discuss?
Surely you don't consider the delerious ravings of my correspondent to
have been responsible commentary by a "public figure".
>The same principle is also applied to articles posted in newsgroups. By
>your very own definition, you are intellectually bankrupt.
No, but you appear to have become increasing desperate to find fault
with my posts. I guess you don't realize that you are permitting me
to jerk your chain.
I suggest that you take a day or two off, and see what others have to
say here. It is embarrassing for all concerned, when you show this
fixation with anything I have to offer.
Demonstrate your independence. Post to someone else...anyone else.
It will earn you nothing but respect.
(A word of advice though: try to find someone at your own
intellectual level.)
John Carrick
help available for you with your anger management problems.
John Carrick
>Huh? Is this the same Judy Rebick that had (or has?) a column in the
>paper? The only time she is hard-hitting is when she falls out of her
>chair! As for her accuracy, her record speaks for itself, ergo there is
>precious little accuracy.
Stop being ridiculous by suggesting that any opinions that differ from
your own must be wrong.
>> Contact the CBC yourself and ask them what happened to Rebick's
>column.
>That would be a waste of time.
No, a true waste of time for me was reading a post which suggested
that the writer's opinions alone had any validity..
Honest John
wrote:
>The Canadian health plan is universal you know. There is no-charge
>help available for you with your anger management problems.
Carrick is speaking from experience!
jims...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >> >Thanks for the spelling lesson.
> >>
> >> No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
> >> the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
> >
> >So....who has been helping you all along?
>
> *That* nonsense again? I tire of encountering so many people here,
> who suggest that their problem with me is that I lack intellligence.
> I demonstrably do not.
John, you certainly do not exhibit anything remotely resembilng even
logic in it's simplest form. You are a one trick pony, Carrit. The
stench of your idealogical ilk permeates this newsgroup with a horrible
tenacity and persistance. You demonstrate not that which you wish to
believe. Not to mention that it's a real hoot watching you struggle
with the spelling of intelligence.
>
> Face it. Your problem with me is that I attack your political values.
No, I truly could care less. You NDP idiots have placed yourselves on
the path of the dinosaur...extinction is all but proven.
> Stop suggesting that I'm stupid, and deal with my objections to your
> overly self-centred approach to life.
Carrit, when do you offer rebuttal or argument? All I see are personal
attacks.
> Unlike you, I don't assume that anyone who disagrees me cannot
> possibly know what he is talking about. I understand enough about
> human cognition to appreciate that two people of considerable
> intelligence may well differ in their politics.
I'm thinking that your head is so far up your ass that you're still
tasting easter dinner (no offence to Ken, hahaha).
> Before I call anyone "stupid" here, he or she must make a quite
> mindless statement - something like calling Hitler a socialist.
In other words, all they need do is make statement that requires simple
logic, which you therefore cannot grasp or comprehend.
> A major cognitive weakness to which we are all subect is not being
> able to see evidence that our thinking is wrong.
Did Bob Rae tell you that in person or did you have a vision?
> The way the human brain works, it is extremely difficult for people to
> tell when their thinking is wrong. And that accounts for most of the
> garbage posts that appear here. Most contriburors to this newsgroup
> show no signs of possessing any critical faculty, when it comes to
> assessing their own opinions.
Well that about sums up your posts, F Yew's and Ken's.
jims...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >It has been a theory of mine that feminism was invented so that ugly
> >women can get money from men too. Rebick and Landsberg do nothing to
> >disprove that theory.
>
> What bullshit! You are a sexist smooth-brain.
What's the matter, Carrit, this does not dovetail with your
indoctrination? You're like a gerbil without a wheel, just spinning
around endlessly in here, flashing your intellectual bankruptcy like
John Wayne Bobbitt in a porn flick, trying to prove
something...anything...to anyone. You have failed.
jims...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >Hey Carrick,...
>
> [1] I am *Mr.* Carrick to you, you egregious boor.
>
> [2] The nominative address requires a comma. It is, "Hey, Mr.
> Carrick..."
>
> Make some attempt to punctuate properly, can't you?
Ah, the good ole spell-check and grammar police. The refuge of those
without argument. Hell, you can't spell intelligence, you bombastic
buffoon, so please don't try to go where the territory is foreign to
you.
> >... your reply reminded me of an earlier post in this thread
> >where someone you might know said: "People who make no attempt to
deal
> >with the substance of a public figure's positions and arguments, and
> >who offer nothing but insult, are demonstrating their intellectual
> >bankruptcy."
>
> Oh? What public figure's positions did I fail to discuss?
Usenet is public, therefore your comments are public, thusly making you
a somewhat miniscule public figure.
> Surely you don't consider the delerious ravings of my correspondent to
> have been responsible commentary by a "public figure".
>
> >The same principle is also applied to articles posted in newsgroups.
By
> >your very own definition, you are intellectually bankrupt.
>
> No, but you appear to have become increasing desperate to find fault
> with my posts. I guess you don't realize that you are permitting me
> to jerk your chain.
Carrit, there is no desperate search to find fault with anything you
write because everything you write is laden with NDP propaganda,
rhetoric, dogma, and myth. When you deal in truth (as if you are able),
then you might find more in agreement with you instead of the
lobotomized, ie., Yew et al.
> I suggest that you take a day or two off, and see what others have to
> say here. It is embarrassing for all concerned, when you show this
> fixation with anything I have to offer.
You conveniently ignore other articles i have posted in here. Adjust
your meds Carrit, your paranoia is running rampant once again, perhaps?
> Demonstrate your independence. Post to someone else...anyone else.
> It will earn you nothing but respect.
Your idiocy is proven by your own hand, yet again.
> (A word of advice though: try to find someone at your own
> intellectual level.)
Nothing wrong with dropping down to your level now and again for sport.
John Ross
James Goneaux <jam...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:rcpprss9ct5tqv5en...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 21:53:57 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >The criterion for being a public figure is
> >that your name is widely recognised.
>
> are a public figure, and can be identified by your surname alone?
>
Indisputably. Carrick is a notorious figure on the newsgroups and
no one would deny that he is widely known. I still wonder though why he
is always asking for respect and begging to be called Mister.
Andrew Golebiowski
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 21:53:57 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
>wrote:
>
>>The criterion for being a public figure is
>>that your name is widely recognised.
>
>So, the fact that you are widely known on Usenet would mean that you
>are a public figure, and can be identified by your surname alone?
>
>
>James Goneaux
Carrick should be careful, as he has been the 'Knight' of the usenet
for years. Whoops, Carrick can't lose his job, can he?
John Ross
E. Barry Bruyea <sha...@dusk.ca> wrote in message
news:39be04d9...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Carrick is the Bob Knight of usenet only in his anger management
abilities. In terms of accomplishments however Carrick falls dismally
short of Bob Knight. Perhaps in the US they would have overlooked
his uncontrollable outbursts and made him a District superintendent
but here in Canada conformity is at a premium.
Bruce Foster
> and hate. Unfortunately it is me who has to pay for it. I do not need
> that stinking old sexist, bigoted collectivist cow telling me how to
> live on public air waves paid for by me. I am under no obligation to
> provide the platform for her corrupt and evil mouthings. If that
> slattern wants to get on top of the dung heap and shout to the sky,
> fine. Let her stand on her own dung. Or yours. But I will not pay for
> it.
Though the above is quite harsh, I tend to agree. Rebick has never been
"silenced," contrary to what her leftist fellow-travellers may think. We
taxpayers have provided her CBC salary for years. Think of it: a
nation-wide forum to spew your leftist nonsense, most of it paid for by the
taxpayer and usually presented without opposing points of view. With the
exception of her old CBC show with Claire Hoy, when have you ever heard
Rebick truly challenged?
Her absurd and vapid "Straight from the Hip" show on CBC Newsworld revelled
in postmodernist stupidity. These shows consisted of like-minded young
women who seem undeservedly impressed with their own sexual (usually lesbian
or at least bi) selves -- doubtless inspired by pseudo-intellectual wankers
like Foucault-the-Dead.
If the ubiquitous Ms. Rebick is being silenced, it certainly is news to me.
John Baglow
> or at least bi) selves -- doubtless inspired by pseudo-intellectual wankers
> like Foucault-the-Dead.
Talk about pseudo-intellectuals! What, precisely, is your critique of
Foucault? Or do you just like to try to impress?
--
Cheers, Help, master, help! here's a fish hangs in the net,
John like a poor man's right in the law; 'twill hardly
come out. --Pericles, Act 2 Scene 1
Bruce Foster
"John Baglow" <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8q12ah$b7a$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Bruce Foster" (hobbes...@home.com) writes:
>
>
> Talk about pseudo-intellectuals! What, precisely, is your critique of
> Foucault? Or do you just like to try to impress?
No, I'm not attempting to impress. Unfortunately, it's a shrill minority of
colleagues in the academy who have been foisting Foucault and assorted other
impenetrable Gallic "theorists" (Derrida and Lacan come quickly to mind) on
the rest of us. Apparently (and this is more a critique of those in the
social sciences) they have been seized by the unshakeable conviction that if
you can't adhere to the philosophical principles of argument, you can at
least baffle 'em with jargon-filled BS.
If we start from first principles, it's easy -- not to mention
distressing -- to see how depressingly vacuous and amoral Foucault was and
how many of his followers (you know, all those "de-centred" and "repressed"
types who talk forever about "text") replicate the same quackery.
Postmodernism, more specifically, the work of Foucault and his followers
(duly parroted by those young women who appear on Judy Rebick's "Straight
From the Sphincter" show) appears utterly devoid of any moral centre; so
much so that, in order to achieve any semblance of moral respect, they are
forced, usually kicking and screaming all the way, to go outside the
clique-y little pseudo-intellectual tarpaper shack they've built for
themselves, and claim morality from...modernism.
Anyhow, that's an argument for another thread. Shall we decontextualize?
Decentre and en/gender my beer for me, eh?
Bruce the Evil Modernist
PS. For fun, access the online postmodernist essay generator at Monash U.
in Australia.
John Baglow
Translation: There *is* an absolute morality, there *is*, there *is*!
I'm the first to concede that charlatans can be found anywhere, including
in the halls of postmodernism. The famous spoof on the hermeneutics of
gravity is proof that things can go badly awry.
On the other hand, Foucault is *not* like the others. There may be much in
Lacan and Derrida, not to mention Spivak and others of the French feminist
school, but I have simply not had the time to determine that for myself.
On the other hand, Foucault is refreshingly accessible and jargon-free,
and he makes a lot of sense (discourse theory).
I suspect that your rejection of postmodernism has some ideological
underpinnings. It is simply silly, for example, to dismiss Judy Rebick in
the way you have. There are few people I know who could hold their own in
debate with her. And that does piss people off--can.politics is
chock-a-block with misogynist whiners who can't win on the issues, so go
after her personally (calling her a "cow" and whatnot). She'll survive
that chorus of losers. Don't involve yourself with those people--you seem
to be a cut above that crowd.
ld...@pathcom.com
>
> > On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:47:30 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I should know to not believe anything you type, it is still there.
> >
> > Pity, only in Canada you say.
>
> Her column is NOT at:
>
> http://cbc.ca/news/
I found it by following Michael's link--I think it may be reclassified
under 'viewpoint' rather than 'news'.
Having read this thread for the first time today I'm afraid I must agree
with John Carrick that the rude and derogatory comments from the
misogynists had nothing to do with the content of the article itself.
In fact they were quite juvenile.
However for the lefties and centrists it can only be beneficial for
their cause to have such bozo neocon comments on the public record.
Their effect on the CA vote may do for women what Myktyshyn's
anti-maritime bigotry did for any hopes the CA may have had down East.
As for the column itself my feeling is that it is a bit exaggerated to
compare Harris and Ecker to Stalin. However the line that impressed me
was near the end and to the effect that ~'Public education is the
backbone of democracy.'~ This idea could have done with some
elaboration, for example that only an educated voter can make an
educated decision. This was a good argument for not doing away with
'media studies', a course I viewed as a good innoculation against
media hype that might otherwise be mistaken for truth.
Another topic that failed to penetrate the thread was school vouchers, a
big issue between Bush (pro) and Gore (con) in the US election. An
airing of the arguments would have been much more interesting than the
puerile insults.
--Lawrence Day
Bruce Foster
> Translation: There *is* an absolute morality, there *is*, there *is*!
Am I supposed to read the above sentence aloud, stamping my feet, mimicking,
oh say, Becky Thatcher? ;-)
I'm convinced there are universal (you seem to insist upon "absolute")
standards of moral behaviour. Postmodernists (and Foucault was among the
most morally underdeveloped) have argued the canard that such universals
cannot exist.
I realize that postmodernism, at least the decontructionist branch of it,
has some utility in literary anaysis/criticism, and in nouveau departments
like women's studies. I also agree that some things can (perhaps even ought
to) be deconstructed.
However, my primary objection to postmodernism is that it validates the
personal -- particularly those in the so-called "oppressed communities" --
to such an extent that rigorous social science inquiry falls by the wayside.
(I'm a political scientist.)
Instead of investigating phenomena dispassionately and in a scholarly way,
postmodernism treats all subjects of inquiry as causes to be advanced. It
is (and again, this applies to its misuse in the social sciences)
impressionistic, emotional, and highly ideological in its assumptions (which
are almost always made a priori).
> I'm the first to concede that charlatans can be found anywhere, including
> in the halls of postmodernism. The famous spoof on the hermeneutics of
> gravity is proof that things can go badly awry.
Indeed, I remember well the "Sokal Affair" in the Duke U. journal "Social
Text." It was a richly-deserved kick in the pants to the amateurish
ideologues in "cultural studies" (whatever *that* is).
> On the other hand, Foucault is refreshingly accessible and jargon-free,
> and he makes a lot of sense (discourse theory).
I disagree; discourse theory tends to be sophist and ahistorical. Granted,
Foucault was clever enough to know what he was doing; which, by all accounts
thus far, included spreading HIV during his visits to San Francisco's gay
bath-houses.
> I suspect that your rejection of postmodernism has some ideological
underpinnings. It is simply silly, for example, to dismiss Judy Rebick in
the way you have
Well yes, my criticism of Rebick has ideological underpinnings: her own
public pronouncements leave one little choice but to return in kind.
However, I don't think I so much as criticized her for *her* own
postmodernist views (she is an old Marxist- structuralist if I recall
correctly) as I did the young(er) women on her Newsworld show who tended to
spout the usually obtuse pomo stuff about "discourse," "queer theory," and
"misogyny." Trouble was, none of it made much sense, and Rebick seemed to
do little but nod her head sagely in agreement, ostensibly on the basis that
while her guests in the main spouted metaphysical nonsense, they were of the
"correct worldview." That is to say, the worldview that holds 3 absolutes
(see? even pomos do this): 1) The personal is political; 2) The world is
patriarchal; and 3) Capitalism must be eradicated.
>There are few people I know who could hold their own in a debate with her.
Gee, I know quite a few.
>And that does piss people off--can.politics is chock-a-block with
misogynist whiners who can't win on the issues, so go after her personally
(calling her a "cow" and whatnot).
I agree with you.
>She'll survive that chorus of losers
Indeed she shall. Like you, I wouldn't want it otherwise.
>Don't involve yourself with those people--you seem to be a cut above that
crowd.
I don't know if I am or not. Perhaps we have too much formal education for
our own good? :-)
Bruce
John Baglow
> Hello John,
>
>> Translation: There *is* an absolute morality, there *is*, there *is*!
>
> Am I supposed to read the above sentence aloud, stamping my feet, mimicking,
> oh say, Becky Thatcher? ;-)
I thought you'd already done that. :)
> I'm convinced there are universal (you seem to insist upon "absolute")
> standards of moral behaviour. Postmodernists (and Foucault was among the
> most morally underdeveloped) have argued the canard that such universals
> cannot exist.
Whence come these "universal standards?" God?
Why was Foucault "morally underdeveloped?" Is this code for "gay?"
>
> I realize that postmodernism, at least the decontructionist branch of it,
> has some utility in literary anaysis/criticism, and in nouveau departments
> like women's studies. I also agree that some things can (perhaps even ought
> to) be deconstructed.
Well, Foucault was a sociologist, and his methods made sense to me in a
book on abortion discourses that appeared some time ago (and that I
reviewed favourably, surprise, surprise). My background *is* litcrit, btw,
but I earned my degrees before the pomo wave...
> However, my primary objection to postmodernism is that it validates the
> personal -- particularly those in the so-called "oppressed communities" --
> to such an extent that rigorous social science inquiry falls by the wayside.
> (I'm a political scientist.)
"So-called" oppressed communities? You mean they aren't? No post-colonial
stresses and strains? No racism? All illusions?
"Rigorous social science inquiry?" What a giveaway--you'll be talking
about "objectivity" next... :) That phrase marks you ideologically just
as surely as my, er, discourse marks me.
> Instead of investigating phenomena dispassionately and in a scholarly way,
Whoops! Are you sure you have no hidden assumptions here?
"Dispassionately?" "scholarly way?" Ideology imbues your, er, discourse...
> postmodernism treats all subjects of inquiry as causes to be advanced. It
> is (and again, this applies to its misuse in the social sciences)
> impressionistic, emotional, and highly ideological in its assumptions (which
> are almost always made a priori).
Guilty as charged, except for the a priori part. Every position is
ideological except for yours, is that it? Ideology-free and value-free is
it? Yet taking a determined stance against all these decentring minorities
and cultures? Without your pulse racing, just a bit? :)
I'll even be willing to re-consider the charge of a priori goings-on, but
only in the sense that all of us (including you) proceed thus in one way
or another. Why is "dispassion" a virtue, i.e. not being implicated in
what you observe? What is the [korrect] "scholarly way?"
>> On the other hand, Foucault is refreshingly accessible and jargon-free,
>> and he makes a lot of sense (discourse theory).
>
> I disagree; discourse theory tends to be sophist and ahistorical. Granted,
> Foucault was clever enough to know what he was doing; which, by all accounts
> thus far, included spreading HIV during his visits to San Francisco's gay
> bath-houses.
Whew! Where to begin...what about challenging the notion that his history
of sexuality or his "Archaeology of Knowledge" are ahistorical? Where is
his sophistry?
As for your charges about his personal life, how are you evidencing
scholarly dispassion with such ad hominem attacks?
>> I suspect that your rejection of postmodernism has some ideological
> underpinnings. It is simply silly, for example, to dismiss Judy Rebick in
> the way you have
>
> Well yes, my criticism of Rebick has ideological underpinnings: her own
> public pronouncements leave one little choice but to return in kind.
Fair enough. So you agree that you, too, have an ideological perspective;
that you are engaged in struggle; and that you are enotional too ("return
in kind.") Now we're getting somewhere.
>>There are few people I know who could hold their own in a debate with her.
>
> Gee, I know quite a few.
Well, I'd like tickets to that. It would be a pretty amazing evening. :)
Bruce Foster
> Whence come these "universal standards?" God?
For some (read for e.g., Aquinas or John Locke -- that is, if you can
possibly stand yet more demonized DWEMs) yes, the universal standard would
be God. For others (read Plato or Aristotle or Machiavelli or Hobbes or
Marx or Mill) the standards remain but the existence of God is largely
irrelevant.
>
> Why was Foucault "morally underdeveloped?" Is this code for "gay?"
Oh please, stop the juvenile, paranoid, flame-bait will ya? His sexual
orientation has nothing to do with it. The fact that he knowingly engaged
in unsafe sexual practices -- which he found thrilling -- is the issue here,
not his sexuality.
> Well, Foucault was a sociologist, and his methods made sense to me in
abook on abortion discourses that appeared some time ago (and that I
reviewed favourably, surprise, surprise). My background *is* litcrit, btw,
but I earned my degrees before the pomo wave...
Sorry to have to correct you, but Foucault was *not* a sociologist (though
his work does influence some sociologists); he was a philosopher and
historian. His primary philosophical influence was Nietzsche who, if you
know a little something about philosophy, ought to raise a warning flag or
17.
> "So-called" oppressed communities? You mean they aren't? No post-colonial
stresses and strains? No racism? All illusions?
Do you teach? At all? Jeez, for a lit-crit guy, you're quite
unidimensional and well, literal. I did not make the case that negative
forms of discrimination were nonexistent. However, the pomos tend to engage
in the genetic fallacy that everyone except white heterosexual males are
irremediably oppressed.
> "Rigorous social science inquiry?" What a giveaway--you'll be talking
about "objectivity" next... :) That phrase marks you ideologically just as
surely as my, er, discourse marks me.
Yeah, I suppose it does. We "do" social science and yes, we are aware that
the study of human reaction/behaviour/organization is fraught with pitfalls.
On the other hand, the aformentioned "Sokal Affair" (previous posting) more
or less reduced the pomos and their presence in any form of scientific
inquiry to um...lower than whale shit ( a good ol' Vancouver Island term).
> Whoops! Are you sure you have no hidden assumptions here?
"Dispassionately?" "scholarly way?" Ideology imbues your, er, discourse...
Probably. But, which ideology, precisely, do you have in mind for me?
(Hint: conservatives -- read Oakeshott -- frown on the dispassionate, too.)
> Guilty as charged, except for the a priori part.
Why "except for the a priori part"? You've made prior assumptions all
along, haven't you?
>Every position is ideological except for yours, is that it? Ideology-free
and value-free is it?
You're coming off a bit like John Cleese in "The Life of Brian." "Every
position"? No and nowhere did I argue that view.
>Yet taking a determined stance against all these decentring minorities and
cultures? Without your pulse racing, just a bit? :)
Oh Gawd, "decentring." Just what does that pomo weasel-word mean anyway? I
took no stance against minorities and non-dominant cultures. You appear so
typical of most postmodernists: levelling charges of racism, sexism, and
homophobia ad nauseum at those who dare to disagree with you.
Deconstuctionism in the social science is what Social Credit was to
economics -- laughable.
> I'll even be willing to re-consider the charge of a priori goings-on, but
only in the sense that all of us (including you) proceed thus in one way or
another. Why is "dispassion" a virtue, i.e. not being implicated in
what you observe? What is the [korrect] "scholarly way?"
Let me turn the question around: why is the personal -- the feelings of an
individual doing the research and publishing her/his findings -- so crucial
to social science inquiry? What possible value could that have at the
epistemological and pedagogical levels? I grant you that "the personal"
does intrude in a sort of basic, existential way, and whether or not we can
truly detach from what we observe and research is open to question. But, we
cut our intellectual teeth largely on the work of our elders, and we do
attempt to remain detached. That's how I was taught, for better or worse.
I tell this to my students: suppose you're writing an expository essay on
the Bloc quebecois. Chances are, the BQ really torques you up, really
pisses you off (hey this is Calgary, after all). Yet, I don't care how much
the members of that party piss you off, because that doesn't tell me
anything about the BQ. All it tells me is that you're angry. Proper social
science inquiry would trace the multifaceted contours of history, politics,
culture, etc. of Quebec and its people. Once you have accounted for those
in a reasonably proficient way, you are ready to tell me what you *know*
about the party -- and not how ticked off you are about their very
existence.
> Whew! Where to begin...what about challenging the notion that his history
of sexuality or his "Archaeology of Knowledge" are ahistorical? Where is his
sophistry?
If you are versed in comparative philosophies, you would know full well that
a good deal of what Foucault wrote was a gross misunderstanding and
misapplication of the Greek tradition. Much of it is poorly argued and
bereft of hypothesis-confirming evidence. (Sorry to tell you: even
philsophers need to confirm or challenge hypotheses in a detached way.)
Ergo, as Plato so vividly express in Republic, a sophist -- one who attempts
intellectual depth but, because of limited comprehension, merely conveys
jargon.
> As for your charges about his personal life, how are you evidencing
scholarly dispassion with such ad hominem attacks?
The charges are not ad hominem; they are in fact documented. Foucault
himself was quite candid about his activities, much to the consternation of
his (last) partner.
> Fair enough. So you agree that you, too, have an ideological perspective;
that you are engaged in struggle; and that you are enotional too ("return in
kind.") Now we're getting somewhere.
Are we? Well, do try to keep up.
> Well, I'd like tickets to that. It would be a pretty amazing evening. :)
Oh yeah, right up there with the best of Platonic dialogues, I'm sure.
;--)
doug rogers
"Bruce Foster" <hobbes...@home.com> wrote:
> Think of it: a
> nation-wide forum to spew your leftist nonsense, most of it paid for by
the
> taxpayer and usually presented without opposing points of view.
Take it to the CBC ombudsperson.
>_____<http://home.golden.net/~samu/> doug rogers_____<
>_____We are meat in the air, flying into night space_____<
John Baglow
> "John Baglow" <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8q3sua$fci$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>> Whence come these "universal standards?" God?
>
> For some (read for e.g., Aquinas or John Locke -- that is, if you can
> possibly stand yet more demonized DWEMs) yes, the universal standard would
> be God. For others (read Plato or Aristotle or Machiavelli or Hobbes or
> Marx or Mill) the standards remain but the existence of God is largely
> irrelevant.
Answer the question. Where do these standards come from? What is their
authority?
>> Why was Foucault "morally underdeveloped?" Is this code for "gay?"
>
> Oh please, stop the juvenile, paranoid, flame-bait will ya? His sexual
> orientation has nothing to do with it. The fact that he knowingly engaged
> in unsafe sexual practices -- which he found thrilling -- is the issue here,
> not his sexuality.
No, with respect, it's *not* the issue. What does any of this have to do
with his philosophy?
>> Well, Foucault was a sociologist, and his methods made sense to me in
> abook on abortion discourses that appeared some time ago (and that I
> reviewed favourably, surprise, surprise). My background *is* litcrit, btw,
> but I earned my degrees before the pomo wave...
>
> Sorry to have to correct you, but Foucault was *not* a sociologist (though
> his work does influence some sociologists); he was a philosopher and
> historian. His primary philosophical influence was Nietzsche who, if you
> know a little something about philosophy, ought to raise a warning flag or
> 17.
I should have indicated that he *began* as a sociologist, with an interest
in incarceration. Then he moved on to the realm of the interdisciplinary.
Your comment about Herr Nietzsche is interesting. I'd always thought that
Foucault was heavily influenced by Marx.
>> "So-called" oppressed communities? You mean they aren't? No post-colonial
> stresses and strains? No racism? All illusions?
>
> Do you teach? At all? Jeez, for a lit-crit guy, you're quite
> unidimensional and well, literal. I did not make the case that negative
> forms of discrimination were nonexistent. However, the pomos tend to engage
> in the genetic fallacy that everyone except white heterosexual males are
> irremediably oppressed.
I think you are overstating the case. The perspective of oppressed
communities is a rich area of study, inextricably linked to the struggle
for liberation. There is nothing "genetic" about this. I do agree that
some of the assumptions can be pessimistic--that oppression is
eternal--but this doesn't characterize these investigations as a whole.
Do I teach? Well, I'm a trade unionist... :)
>> "Rigorous social science inquiry?" What a giveaway--you'll be talking
> about "objectivity" next... :) That phrase marks you ideologically just as
> surely as my, er, discourse marks me.
>
> Yeah, I suppose it does. We "do" social science and yes, we are aware that
> the study of human reaction/behaviour/organization is fraught with pitfalls.
> On the other hand, the aformentioned "Sokal Affair" (previous posting) more
> or less reduced the pomos and their presence in any form of scientific
> inquiry to um...lower than whale shit ( a good ol' Vancouver Island term).
It exposed carelessness and charlatanism, both of which surround any new
ideas or approaches. Think of the countless imitators of McLuhan. The
difficulty being, if you don't understand Derrida in the first place, you
won't understand those who write in his idiom. This is an opportunity for
those who master the jargon without advancing understanding. Things slip
into learned journals this way.
>> Whoops! Are you sure you have no hidden assumptions here?
> "Dispassionately?" "scholarly way?" Ideology imbues your, er, discourse...
>
> Probably. But, which ideology, precisely, do you have in mind for me?
> (Hint: conservatives -- read Oakeshott -- frown on the dispassionate, too.)
That one's easy. You're a liberal, a la Karl Popper.
>> Guilty as charged, except for the a priori part.
>
> Why "except for the a priori part"? You've made prior assumptions all
> along, haven't you?
So have you, beginning with those absolute, er, universal standards of yours.
>>Every position is ideological except for yours, is that it? Ideology-free
> and value-free is it?
>
> You're coming off a bit like John Cleese in "The Life of Brian." "Every
> position"? No and nowhere did I argue that view.
It's implicit. My Dad was a scientist and an ideological liberal. I used
to get frustrated by all this value-free, non-ideological ideology, and we
had great arguments. I think your positions are similar, but perhaps I
assume too much.
>>Yet taking a determined stance against all these decentring minorities and
> cultures? Without your pulse racing, just a bit? :)
>
> Oh Gawd, "decentring." Just what does that pomo weasel-word mean anyway? I
> took no stance against minorities and non-dominant cultures. You appear so
> typical of most postmodernists: levelling charges of racism, sexism, and
> homophobia ad nauseum at those who dare to disagree with you.
> Deconstuctionism in the social science is what Social Credit was to
> economics -- laughable.
I'm not accusing you of anything, so stop being so sensitive. "Decentring"
means the pull against "authoritative" centres to a more contentious view
of reality. Example: in "The Second Sex," de Beauvoir notes that,
traditionally, men have been the yardstick against which women are
measured. Example: cultures, languages, histories are still measured
against or within a European world-view. Decentring simply means
recognizing this and developing new ways of looking at such matters as
culture and history. Nothing very scary there, unless you have a vested
interest in some of those centres of authority...
>> I'll even be willing to re-consider the charge of a priori goings-on, but
> only in the sense that all of us (including you) proceed thus in one way or
> another. Why is "dispassion" a virtue, i.e. not being implicated in
> what you observe? What is the [korrect] "scholarly way?"
>
> Let me turn the question around: why is the personal -- the feelings of an
> individual doing the research and publishing her/his findings -- so crucial
> to social science inquiry? What possible value could that have at the
> epistemological and pedagogical levels? I grant you that "the personal"
> does intrude in a sort of basic, existential way, and whether or not we can
> truly detach from what we observe and research is open to question. But, we
> cut our intellectual teeth largely on the work of our elders, and we do
> attempt to remain detached. That's how I was taught, for better or worse.
This, of course, is a big question. Engagement versus detachment. I read
Sartre at an early age, what can I tell you? To me it's downright
unnatural to stay detached. What does the personal bring to enquiry? Why,
experience.
> I tell this to my students: suppose you're writing an expository essay on
> the Bloc quebecois. Chances are, the BQ really torques you up, really
> pisses you off (hey this is Calgary, after all). Yet, I don't care how much
> the members of that party piss you off, because that doesn't tell me
> anything about the BQ. All it tells me is that you're angry. Proper social
> science inquiry would trace the multifaceted contours of history, politics,
> culture, etc. of Quebec and its people. Once you have accounted for those
> in a reasonably proficient way, you are ready to tell me what you *know*
> about the party -- and not how ticked off you are about their very
> existence.
And yet, "why" a person is pissed off by the BQ is a legitimate avenue of
inquiry. I learned quite early on that my rising resistance and rage
when confronting some new concept (within feminism, for example) meant
that I was about to learn something. Investigating one's anger against the
BQ could prove interesting and fruitful.
>> Whew! Where to begin...what about challenging the notion that his history
> of sexuality or his "Archaeology of Knowledge" are ahistorical? Where is his
> sophistry?
>
> If you are versed in comparative philosophies, you would know full well that
> a good deal of what Foucault wrote was a gross misunderstanding and
> misapplication of the Greek tradition. Much of it is poorly argued and
> bereft of hypothesis-confirming evidence. (Sorry to tell you: even
> philsophers need to confirm or challenge hypotheses in a detached way.)
> Ergo, as Plato so vividly express in Republic, a sophist -- one who attempts
> intellectual depth but, because of limited comprehension, merely conveys
> jargon.
I will admit I have no knowledge of Foucault's alleged misreading of the
Greek tradition. Those who deal in the history of ideas are always open to
criticism because of the enormity of their subject-matter. But I think it
is self-evident that Foucault is not ahistorical in his approach to
things. That was my original point.
>> As for your charges about his personal life, how are you evidencing
> scholarly dispassion with such ad hominem attacks?
>
> The charges are not ad hominem; they are in fact documented. Foucault
> himself was quite candid about his activities, much to the consternation of
> his (last) partner.
"Not ad hominem but documented?" Please. So if I avoid Rebick's analysis
and comment on her looks, this is legitimate so long as I can produce an
unflattering photograph?
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
> The Canadian health plan is universal you know. There is no-charge
> help available for you with your anger management problems.
>
FYI carrickature, in BC and AB we pay for health care coverage
individually. So much for your universe.
John Baglow
> Sorry to have to correct you, but Foucault was *not* a sociologist (though
> his work does influence some sociologists); he was a philosopher and
> historian.
On reflection, I'll have to concede this point. I was thinking of works
such as "Birth of the Prison," but essentially he is more an historian of
ideas and a philosopher. That being said, his work really overflows
traditional disciplinary boundaries.
He doesn't strike me as a disciple of Nietzsche, btw.
John Baglow
>> Sorry to have to correct you, but Foucault was *not* a sociologist (though
>> his work does influence some sociologists); he was a philosopher and
>> historian. His primary philosophical influence was Nietzsche who, if you
>> know a little something about philosophy, ought to raise a warning flag or
>> 17.
>
> I should have indicated that he *began* as a sociologist, with an interest
> in incarceration. Then he moved on to the realm of the interdisciplinary.
On reflection, I'll have to concede this point, although his Birth of the
Clinic and Birth of the Prison, both early works, clearly involve
sociology. But even then he was more a philosopher and historian. But his
works really defy disciplinary categories, over all.
John Baglow
> "Bruce Foster" (hobbes...@home.com) writes:
[snip]
Uh...you still there, Bruce? :)
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) wrote:
>
including
> in the halls of postmodernism. The famous spoof on the hermeneutics of
> gravity is proof that things can go badly awry.
>
much in
> Lacan and Derrida, not to mention Spivak and others of the French
feminist
> school, but I have simply not had the time to determine that for
myself.
jargon-free,
> and he makes a lot of sense (discourse theory).
Jargon free? Take some advice: spare us your psuedo-intellectual BS.
>
> I suspect that your rejection of postmodernism has some ideological
> underpinnings. It is simply silly, for example, to dismiss Judy Rebick
in
> the way you have. There are few people I know who could hold their own
in
> debate with her.
My doggy, Captain Barky, for instance could win in any yap fest with
Ribbit.
All one has to remember in debating with leftists is that they start
from an immoral position based on slavery that requires any other
parties to debase themselves to the needs of those who have... needs.
There is no virtue in collectivism other than having a need. And to
satsify that need requires force. Collectivists are thugs and will steal
from you at any moment.
And that does piss people off--can.politics is
> chock-a-block with misogynist whiners who can't win on the issues, so
go
> after her personally (calling her a "cow" and whatnot). She'll survive
> that chorus of losers. Don't involve yourself with those people--you
seem
> to be a cut above that crowd.
You however are a simple thug.
>
> --
> Cheers, Help, master, help! here's a fish hangs
in the net,
> John like a poor man's right in the law; 'twill
hardly
> come out. --Pericles, Act 2 Scene
1
>
John Baglow
> Jargon free? Take some advice: spare us your psuedo-intellectual BS.
That's "pseudo-intellectual." Just trying to help.
> My doggy, Captain Barky, for instance could win in any yap fest with
> Ribbit.
Hmm...Ribbit, eh? Sound a frog makes. A racist allusion to Foucault's
nationality, eh? Typical of you crypto-nazi, anonymous scumbags.
> You however are a simple thug.
And you're a cowardly anonymous asshole. Case closed.
will...@my-deja.com
sa...@golden.net (doug rogers) wrote:
> In article <crTw5.312648$8u4.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> "Bruce Foster" <hobbes...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Think of it: a
> > nation-wide forum to spew your leftist nonsense, most of it paid
for by
> the
> > taxpayer and usually presented without opposing points of view.
>
> Take it to the CBC ombudsperson.
>
> http://cbc.ca/insidecbc/
Well Doug my Boy,
You sure do have a lot of faith in offices and titles if you think
that's going to make any difference.
The CBC Ombudsman is the Corp's own in-house non-watchdog, designed to
catch flak from viewer/listeners, and then re-direct it so it spins
around and around, then goes back to the source. With nothing having
changed at the Corp.
Face it! Judy Rebick was given a job at the CBC by the Federal Liberals
because she helped the party in the 1993 Election, by helping to squish
Audrey McLaughlin and the Federal NDP. There is no way Judy is going to
loose her patronage job at the CBC, unless the Alliance wins the next
election. Liberals are always loyal to everyone who comes their way
with a package of voters and does some damage to an opponent.
Next up? Bill Barlee and Roy Romanow. In the wings? How about Mikey
Harcourt?
Will.
will...@my-deja.com
F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> noth...@spammer.com wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:47:30 GMT, F. Yew <fuc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I should know to not believe anything you type, it is still there.
> >
> > Pity, only in Canada you say.
>
> Her column is NOT at:
>
> http://cbc.ca/news/
>
> last week but it was removed after several days.
>
> I believe she's being silenced by the top brass at the CBC. Shame on
> them!
>
> F. Yew
Hey F. Yew,
You can relax. Judy is still collecting a big salary from the Corp.
The Liberals won't allow the Corp to get rid of her, becuase they put
her there as a reward for her actions in the 1993 Federal Election.
will...@my-deja.com
> I suspect that your rejection of postmodernism has some ideological
> underpinnings. It is simply silly, for example, to dismiss Judy Rebick
in
> the way you have. There are few people I know who could hold their own
in
> debate with her. And that does piss people off--can.politics is
> chock-a-block with misogynist whiners who can't win on the issues, so
go
> after her personally (calling her a "cow" and whatnot). She'll survive
> that chorus of losers. Don't involve yourself with those people--you
seem
> to be a cut above that crowd.
Hellooo Mister Baglow,
Am I to understand that you believe Judy Rebick to be a legitimate
intellectual? Am I to take it from this that you find her opinions
generally agreeable? Could one fairly call you a "supporter" of
Rebick's political beliefs, values and attitudes?
If so, I would like to enquire as to just how far down the Rebick road
you are prepared to travel? Are there no dangers there at all?
will...@my-deja.com
will...@my-deja.com
"Bruce Foster" <hobbes...@home.com> wrote:
> > and hate. Unfortunately it is me who has to pay for it. I do not
need
> > that stinking old sexist, bigoted collectivist cow telling me how to
> > live on public air waves paid for by me. I am under no obligation to
> > provide the platform for her corrupt and evil mouthings. If that
> > slattern wants to get on top of the dung heap and shout to the sky,
> > fine. Let her stand on her own dung. Or yours. But I will not pay
for
> > it.
>
> Though the above is quite harsh, I tend to agree. Rebick has never
been
> "silenced," contrary to what her leftist fellow-travellers may think.
We
> taxpayers have provided her CBC salary for years.
Hey Bruce Old Boy,
You know something? I think you may have stumbled on something truly
profound, here. A whole new discovery. The CBC is a patronage trough
run for the benefit of the governing party.
> Think of it: a
> nation-wide forum to spew your leftist nonsense, most of it paid for
by the
> taxpayer and usually presented without opposing points of view. With
the
> exception of her old CBC show with Claire Hoy, when have you ever
heard
> Rebick truly challenged?
And what the Hell kind of a challenge was that? A right wing kook
versus a left-wing nut? Liberals Rule! I wonder why?
>
> Her absurd and vapid "Straight from the Hip" show on CBC Newsworld
revelled
> in postmodernist stupidity.
PUH-leeze break down and ressure us all that you do NOT watch said
program on a regular basis.
> These shows consisted of like-minded
young
> women who seem undeservedly impressed with their own sexual (usually
lesbian
> or at least bi) selves -- doubtless inspired by pseudo-intellectual
wankers
> like Foucault-the-Dead.
>
> If the ubiquitous Ms. Rebick is being silenced, it certainly is news
to me.
Rebick is being rewarded on orders from Sheila Copps, for the valuable
role she palyed in helping to gut Audrey McLaughlin and the NDP in the
1993 Federal Election. NO, she will not be silenced. Ever. Even
though her attitude on many issues if dangerous, unjust and scary. Her
attitude towards sexual harassment policies at universities and
elsewhere is enough to frighten ANY reasonable person.
John Baglow
> Am I to understand that you believe Judy Rebick to be a legitimate
> intellectual? Am I to take it from this that you find her opinions
> generally agreeable? Could one fairly call you a "supporter" of
> Rebick's political beliefs, values and attitudes?
Yes to all the above.
>
>
> If so, I would like to enquire as to just how far down the Rebick road
> you are prepared to travel? Are there no dangers there at all?
a) the whole distance; b) plenty of dangers. But that makes life exciting,
doesn't it?
Btw: where did you get that rubbish about her being a Liberal patronage
appointment? There's fantasizing and there's fantasizing, but this one
ought to get some sort of prize.
will...@my-deja.com
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) wrote:
> (will...@my-deja.com) writes:
>
> > Am I to understand that you believe Judy Rebick to be a legitimate
> > intellectual? Am I to take it from this that you find her opinions
> > generally agreeable? Could one fairly call you a "supporter" of
> > Rebick's political beliefs, values and attitudes?
>
> Yes to all the above.
Hellooo Baglow,
Well Baglow, old boy. One certainly has to give you marks for honesty
and frankness. You have copped, as it were, to the entire indictment.
The truly shocking thing is that you seem blissfully unaware of just
what a terrible mistake you are making. Please, read on.
> >
> >
> > If so, I would like to enquire as to just how far down the Rebick
road
> > you are prepared to travel? Are there no dangers there at all?
>
> a) the whole distance; b) plenty of dangers. But that makes life
exciting,
Another shocking reply.
I hope that, upon reading the article below and reflecting on it's
implications, that you will realize that Rebick is not some trifling
left wing spokesperson, but a dangerous individual who is quite capable
of knowingly doing much harm to the lives and careers of completely
innocent Canadians she has never even met.
> Btw: where did you get that rubbish about her being a Liberal
patronage
> appointment? There's fantasizing and there's fantasizing, but this one
> ought to get some sort of prize.
Let me put it this way. When Liberal Govt agencies hand out jobs to
favoured people, they don't record it in the Minutes of the Meeting that
they approved a patronage appointment for so and so. But there is no
doubt that Judy's work for the CBC, which began only once the Liberals
defeated the Tories in 1993, is some kind of patronage plum in
appreciation for her role in destroying the Federal NDP in the 1993
Federal Election. The Liberals are now closing that entire account with
the Romanow Gambit.
Here, Baglow, is the thing that you and every other one of Judy Rebick's
army of devoted sycophants ought to read. If this doesn't shock and
frighten you, then you must be truly indoctrinated. It's an article
written three years ago by Rebick commenting on the Marsden Donnelly
sexual harassment case at Simon Fraser University.
________________________________________________________________________
Article from Canadian Forum, Sept 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEXUAL POLITICS 101
"He" who casts the first stone
by JUDY REBICK
If anyone thought sexism in the media was passe, witness the
press coverage of the recent Simon Fraser University sexual
harassment case. The Vancouver press has outdone itself with
yellow journalism, but I want to focus on just one editorial
in my favourite newspaper, The Globe and Mail.
First the story, for those who were out of the country
or on a news fast over the summer.
Student Rachel Marsden filed a sexual harassment
complaint against swim coach Liam Donnelly. A university
tribunal found that her allegations of date rape, among
other things, were valid. The university president then
fired Donnelly.
Donnelly had refused to attend the harassment hearing,
on the advice of his lawyer. When he realized the
consequences, he went to the media, which proceeded to
report his allegations that Marsden had stalked him and sent
him suggestive e-mails and photos. He denies that he had any
kind of sexual relationship with her. She claims that she
consented to a relationship, but it became abusive and he
consistently pushed her beyond where she wanted to go.
The Globe and Mail editorial, entitled "Salome Justice",
begins: "It used to be the case that burly football players
and handsome male swimmers, those confident men who stood to
bring honour to their universities through the athletics
program, could cut secret deals with campus administrators
....
"These days, the trick is to have something against
swimmers or other such nasty, overconfident men. Then
threaten to bring not honour but rather dishonour to the
university through the sexual-harassment process. The
result is the same as before: a secret deal with
administrators for passing grades, particularly good
treatment under the student disciplinary code, and a bit of
money - say, $12,000 - on the side. Or so we have most
recently been reminded by the case of former Simon Fraser
University student Rachel Marsden."
Now remember, Marsden is the swimmer. Donnelly is the
coach.
Salome, you will recall, used her sexuality to convince
Herod to cut off the head of John the Baptist, the only man
not susceptible to her charms. What an incredible analogy. A
young woman, 19 at the time of incidents about which she is
complaining, decides to use the university's process to
complain about what she considers an abusive relationship
with her coach. And Canada's national newspaper brands her a
Salome.
The editorial then says that although "there may well be
integrity to Ms. Marsden's allegations", she has received
"unfair and generous stroking" from the university
administration. She is accusing her coach of rape and says
that her emotional health has been severely affected.
Compensation for pain and suffering in other human rights
cases is fairly routine; why not on a university campus?
The editorial talks about a secretive, selective process
during which the man she accused did not testify. The
procedure is confidential to protect both parties. Women's
groups would prefer a more open process because nothing
stops harassment faster than naming the harasser. But if
university harassment panels did that, The Globe and Mail
and its like-minded buddies on campus would scream about
ruining reputations.
The editorial fails to mention that Donnelly chose not
to attend the panel. Instead, he went to the media,
confident that his side of the story would be told. And the
media were only too happy to oblige, turning the victim into
the victimizer in the public's eyes.
The editorial ends by saying that Marsden is the
latest woman on a "well- trodden path of 'sexual harassment'
complainants who seek retribution not through the public
courts but through the closed doors of their universities".
Well, the news for The Globe and Mail is that sexual
harassment is not a criminal offence. It is a human rights
abuse. If sexual harassment had to meet the test of evidence
in a criminal court, it would be a much more serious problem
on campus that it is now.
There may be need for some reform in how sexual
harassment cases are dealt with. I, too, would prefer a more
open process. But the establishment of sexual harassment
policies and procedures has had an important effect on
making universities and workplaces more welcoming to women
and minorities. The Rachel Marsden case has put a chill on
sexual harassment cases in B.C. that will probably match the
chill on rape complaints before we had a rape shield law.
And the media are in no small part to blame.
Since I finished writing this column, Donnelly has got
his job back. None of us is in a position to judge the
fairness of either the original decision or the reversal by
the acting president. But regardless of whether one or the
other or both are mistaken, it doesn't justify the
widespread attack on sexual harassment procedures
represented by the media coverage in this case.
________________________________________________________________________
Well, Baglow, what do you think now? Do you still want to go all the
way down the road to Rebickland, in which a male employee accused of
harassment is not only guilty until proven innocent, they are STILL
guilty even AFTER they have demonstrated their innocence? It sounds to
me like a wacko brand of feminist McCarthyism. What does it sound like
to you, Baglow?
And what practical impact do you think Rebick's approact to harassment
policies would have on the concepts of tenure and job security in
professional employment? Do you think it's possible that many
authoritarian administrators find it convenient to make common cause
with Rebick and her devotees as a means or reestablishing the arbitrary
power over people's lives and careers that they have tended to lose over
the past half-century or more?
will...@my-deja.com
John Baglow
[mega-snip]
Thanks for reposting Judy's piece (twice!). I'd forgotten how good it was.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
> (will...@my-deja.com) writes:
>
>
>
> [mega-snip]
>
>Thanks for reposting Judy's piece (twice!). I'd forgotten how good it was.
>
>
>--
>Cheers, Help, master, help! here's a fish hangs in the net,
>John like a poor man's right in the law; 'twill hardly
> come out. --Pericles, Act 2 Scene 1
Repetition is the key to propaganda.
will...@my-deja.com
>
> Thanks for reposting Judy's piece (twice!). I'd forgotten how good it
was.
Mister Baglow,
Is this a joke of yours?
Do you agree with Rebick that "Marsden is the victim"? Do you accept
the necessary implication that Donnelly must be guilty, no matter what
the evidence? Are her comments on that case really in agreement with
your own opinions and values?
I cannot believe that any reasonable or responsible person would
actually support Rebick's view that Donnelly should still be regarded as
guilty, no matter what. If you are just trying to be argumentative or
inflammatory, well, you have succeeded as far as I am concerned.
will...@my-deja.com
>
> Thanks for reposting Judy's piece (twice!). I'd forgotten how good it
was.
Mister Baglow,
Is this a joke of yours?
Do you agree with Rebick that "Marsden is the victim"? Do you accept
the necessary implication that Donnelly must be guilty, no matter what
the evidence? Are her comments on that case really in agreement with
your own opinions and values?
I cannot believe that any reasonable or responsible person would
actually support Rebick's view that Donnelly should still be regarded as
guilty, no matter what. If you are just trying to be argumentative or
inflammatory, well, you have succeeded as far as I am concerned.
will...@my-deja.com
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>
> >> >>> Where is Judy Rebick's article?
> >> >>
> >> >>It is being used as toilette paper.
> >> >>
> >> >>I hope she is gone. She is disgusting.
> >> >
> >> >[1] The term is toilet-paper. You could look it up in a friend
or
> >> >neighbour's dictionary.
> >
> >Thanks for the spelling lesson.
>
> No thanks are required. "Noblesse oblige" you know. It is part of
> the bright man's burden to assist the benighted.
>
> >> >[2] As far as you are concerned anyone who doesn't agree with
your
> >> >political values is "disgusting". That confirms you as a biased
> >> >air-head.
> >>
> >> ...but,.....she really is a disgusting pig, don't you think?
>
> Since you have asked my opinion, I'll tell you that I consider Judy
> Rebick to be courageous, highly informed, and very intelligent.
{Aaarrrggghhh Cough Choke}
[Gasping] Excuse me Mister Carrick!?!? Is this a joke?!?!
Judy Rebick is a dangerous lunatic. If you don't believe me, read the
article below which she wrote in order to provide instructions for her
followers. In the matter of the Marsden-Donnelly case at SFU, she
orders her disciples and devotees, including you apparently, to consider
Donnelly guilty no matter what. It's total McCarthyism. Not only is
one guilty until proven innocent, one is STILL guilty even AFTER they
have demonstrated their innocence.
Article from
CANADIAN FORUM, SEPTEMBER 1997
SEXUAL POLITICS 101
by JUDY REBICK
"These days, the trick is to have something against
I would really like to know your reaction to this kind of thing Mister
Carrick. Do you really think Rebick is on the level if she writes
material like this?
Steve Marskell
will...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I would really like to know your reaction to this kind of thing Mister
> Carrick. Do you really think Rebick is on the level if she writes
> material like this?
what's your problem with the material in question?? are her facts
wrong?
will...@my-deja.com
Yes, Mister Marskell, as I think you well know, they ARE wrong.
For example, she refused to tell her readers that Marsden's allegations
of date rape had been investigated by the police and dropped. She
states that Donnelly was found guilty of date rape by "a tribunal",
implying some degree of professionalism and thoroughness in the
processing of Marsden's complaint. Yet nothing could be further from
teh truth. The University's own procedures had been violated in the
very selection of the three person panel that becomes, in Rebick's
choice of words, a tribunal.
In fact, numerous other SFU harassment cases had to be reopened and
reprocessed when the proceduratl errors were discovered. There errors
had affected many cases and were all the result of decisions made by the
former SFU harassment policy coordinator, Patti O'Hagan, who got a juicy
severance award. O'Hagan was a personal friend of Marsden's, took her
on a very friendly rafting trip, etc., while her office was processing
the complaint.
But the most appalling thing is Rebick's outright McCarthyism, her
ironclad determination that Donnelly is guilty, NO MATTER WHAT. Marsden
sent him suggestive Emails and photos AFTER the dates when she claims
she was raped. In Rebickland, this is no problem, merely a reflection
of how victimized some women are, and proof that the dirty rotten media
are only interested in cheap sensationalism. Zealous dishonest like
Rebick's is very dangerous, it can lead to innocent people losing their
livlihoods.
Now, here's a quesion for you Mister Marskell. If Rebick is so
concerned about the dirty rotten media, why is it that she earns her
living there? Could it be a patronage plum, or is it just that she
hasn't yet found a more suitable situation (English translation: no one
else will give her a job besides the CBC)
Steve Marskell
will...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Now, here's a quesion for you Mister Marskell. If Rebick is so
> concerned about the dirty rotten media, why is it that she earns her
> living there? Could it be a patronage plum, or is it just that she
> hasn't yet found a more suitable situation (English translation: no one
> else will give her a job besides the CBC)
She has a job that satisfies her needs........why would she look for
another situation?
will...@my-deja.com
> another situation?
Mister Marskell,
What about the rest? Do you agree with the opinions expressed in
Rebick's article on the Marsden-Donnelly case? Do you accept Rebick's
description of Marsden as the victim, meaning that Donnelly is still
guilty, regardless of the evidence and regardless of all of the
procedural problems?
And I gather you don't think her job at the CBC is the result of
patronage, is that it?
will...@my-deja.com
>
> Thanks for reposting Judy's piece (twice!). I'd forgotten how good it
was.
>
Why doesn't Baglow follow up on this flippant and offensive posting?
Steve Marskell
will...@my-deja.com wrote:
> What about the rest? Do you agree with the opinions expressed in
> Rebick's article on the Marsden-Donnelly case? Do you accept Rebick's
> description of Marsden as the victim, meaning that Donnelly is still
> guilty, regardless of the evidence and regardless of all of the
> procedural problems?
I think Marsden is .....a victim, as is Donnelly. If the facts are as
you say then Marsden is a victim of her own foolishness.
> And I gather you don't think her job at the CBC is the result of
> patronage, is that it?
I know nothing of the circumstances of how she obtained her job at the
CBC, so I am have no comment. You may infer what you like based most
likely on limited information.
will...@my-deja.com
smar...@home.com wrote:
>
>
> will...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > What about the rest? Do you agree with the opinions expressed in
> > Rebick's article on the Marsden-Donnelly case? Do you accept
Rebick's
> > description of Marsden as the victim, meaning that Donnelly is still
> > guilty, regardless of the evidence and regardless of all of the
> > procedural problems?
>
> I think Marsden is .....a victim, as is Donnelly. If the facts are as
> you say then Marsden is a victim of her own foolishness.
Foolishness? That's all? Making false allegations to the police, then
to university officials which could have resulted in either imprisonment
or permanent career loss, and thank's to Rebick's followers at SFU did
at one point cost Donnelly his job, this amounts to no more than
"foolishness"?
If someone were to suggest to you, Mister Marskell, that this kind of
conduct is malicious, dishonest, curel and destructive, would you think
that excessive, or somehow patriarchal? Just how far do you want to go
in terms of accomdating female complaints of male sexual improprieties?
And what about Rebick's viewpoint. That Donnelly is to be considered
guilty, regardless of the university's discoveries of massive procedural
flaws, and the public knowledge that Marsden's claims were wholly
inconsistent with her own conduct? Does Rebick still get a pass from
you? Are you not able to find any fault at all with what Rebick is
saying?
Steve Marskell
will...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Foolishness? That's all? Making false allegations to the police, then
> to university officials which could have resulted in either imprisonment
> or permanent career loss, and thank's to Rebick's followers at SFU did
> at one point cost Donnelly his job, this amounts to no more than
> "foolishness"?
Has Marsden been charged by the police for making these false
accusations/statements??
> If someone were to suggest to you, Mister Marskell, that this kind of
> conduct is malicious, dishonest, curel and destructive, would you think
> that excessive, or somehow patriarchal? Just how far do you want to go
> in terms of accomdating female complaints of male sexual improprieties?
Far enough that there is balance in society and protection for the
majority that abide by civilized rules of conduct.
> And what about Rebick's viewpoint. That Donnelly is to be considered
> guilty, regardless of the university's discoveries of massive procedural
> flaws, and the public knowledge that Marsden's claims were wholly
> inconsistent with her own conduct? Does Rebick still get a pass from
> you? Are you not able to find any fault at all with what Rebick is
> saying?
Actually, I don't have a problem with Rebick's view that Donnelly is
still guilty because a procedural flaw is a procedural flaw, it is not
massive evidence of innocence. You, sir, strike me as the obvious
candidate to be part of the lynch mob that would chase after a "known
serial killer" that had just been let go scott free on a "technicality
(procedural flaw)". So what if Rebick is like minded??
will...@my-deja.com
smar...@home.com wrote:
>
>
> will...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Foolishness? That's all? Making false allegations to the police,
then
> > to university officials which could have resulted in either
imprisonment
> > or permanent career loss, and thank's to Rebick's followers at SFU
did
> > at one point cost Donnelly his job, this amounts to no more than
> > "foolishness"?
>
> Has Marsden been charged by the police for making these false
> accusations/statements??
Of course not. She now has a big job in New York and a brand new
website:
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/rmarsden/
The police are rarely able to prove that unfounded allegations are
complete falsehoods. But there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who
has seen the rest of what Marsden did that these allegations were
fabrications. In fact, only you and Judy Rebick seem to have any doubt
about this, along with a couple of former SFU officials and aids who
were key instigators in the abortive railroad job on Donnelly.
For example, Marsden later sent Donnelly emails asking him for dates,
and included photos of herself in lingerie, open blouses, etc.
At one point, she decided to turn her attentions towards a criminology
professor who had publicly doubted her story, enrolling in one of his
classes, and then insisting the he personally mark her papers and tests.
He declined because he didn't want to be accused of biased marking if
he gave her a low mark.
> > If someone were to suggest to you, Mister Marskell, that this kind
of
> > conduct is malicious, dishonest, curel and destructive, would you
think
> > that excessive, or somehow patriarchal? Just how far do you want to
go
> > in terms of accomdating female complaints of male sexual
improprieties?
>
> Far enough that there is balance in society and protection for the
> majority that abide by civilized rules of conduct.
What was missing in the SFU procedure was any semblance of the balance
you say you favour. The panel members were hand picked by the director
of the harassment policy office who struck up a close friendship with
Marsden during the course of processing her complaint.
> > And what about Rebick's viewpoint. That Donnelly is to be
considered
> > guilty, regardless of the university's discoveries of massive
procedural
> > flaws, and the public knowledge that Marsden's claims were wholly
> > inconsistent with her own conduct? Does Rebick still get a pass
from
> > you? Are you not able to find any fault at all with what Rebick is
> > saying?
>
> Actually, I don't have a problem with Rebick's view that Donnelly is
> still guilty because a procedural flaw is a procedural flaw, it is not
> massive evidence of innocence.
It wasn't "a procedural flaw", it was many flaws, starting with the
choice of panelists and then going on from there. Remember that SFU
had to throw out several other previous harassment case findings at
the same time as they discovered that these procedural flaws had
affect many cases. As for the actual assessment of the evidence in this
case, it was pure nonsense. The Fraser Institute had a commerce
professor, David Finlay, do a complete review of the panel's handiwork:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/pps/25/index.html
By all means, take a look for yourself. It's true that throwing out a
case on technicalities doesn't prove innocence, but there was much more
than that happening here.
> You, sir, strike me as the obvious
> candidate to be part of the lynch mob that would chase after a "known
> serial killer" that had just been let go scott free on a "technicality
> (procedural flaw)". So what if Rebick is like minded??
On the contrary. I despise corrupt and prejudiced processes which lead
to wrongful convictions. Rebick has no problem with it, as long as the
prejudices are consistent with her political agenda, and members of her
extended feminist network are making a good career for themselves
pursuing such cases.