🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Kenneth R. Pangborn ~krp~ wrote:

> "Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message 
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050304110911.2013B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Kenneth R. Pangborn ~krp~ wrote:

> >> "Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050303095930.9561C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

> >> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, ~krp~ wrote:

> >> >> >> How much do you want to suport [sic] this jerkoff phoney? How many
> >> >> >> MORE
> >> >> > lies do you need before you conclude he's trash and you quit 
> >> >> > defending
> >> >> > him?>>

> >> >> > What do you interpret as _support_ ?

> >> >> > What do you interpret as defense?

> >> > I not[e] that no examples have been given.

> >> Sure they have, your continued attempts to ARGUE in his favor.

> > I note that, true to form, you have offered absolutely no examples to
> > prove your allegation, even though the link to the thread has been
> > provided on several occasions.

> A link to what? 

As I stated "the link to the thread has been provided."

What is it you don't understand about "link to the thread"?

Here it is again cause you snipped it and asked "A link to what?"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/milw.general/browse_frm/thread/8085d2e81973f
b30/547e747c4df9d7b4?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fmilw.general%2Fthreads%3Fgvc%3D2%26&_doneT
itle=Back&&d#547e747c4df9d7b4      

The link to the thread is offered for your convenience since you have
suggested I argue for Ward Churchill when I have done no such thing.

I provide the link to the thread to make it easy for you to find proof
that I argue for Ward Churchill.  You won't find any, because I haven't.

> Carol you ARGUE

What have I argued?  Nothing in support of Ward Churchill.  I have even
stated I haven't passed judgment.  What is it you don't understand about
my not passing judgment?

> with ALL the evidence that comes forward to show the man is a
> pathological liar, an academic fraud, I don't much give a 
> shit for your twisted rationalizations - that IS supporting
> him! PERIOD! End of debate.

Since you can't provide any direct quote of mine which proves I have
supported or do support Ward Churchill, I agree that you should give up.

When you do find evidence of what you allege, which is more than news
reports, do let me know.  I might consider at that time to give more of an
opinion other than:

PREVIOUSLY POSTED:


If the event hadn't been sold out, I would have driven down there to hear
what he had to say.

I am sure there were a lot of people there who were listening for that
reason.  They wanted to hear what he had to say.  That didn't make them
supporters or defenders of the subject or the subject matter.

If the allegations against Ward Churchill are proven to have merit, it is
up to the institution for which he works to deal with it.

If he has commited perjury with regard to artwork, it is up to the
survivors of the artist in question to take Churchill to court for
satisfaction.