🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, ~krp~ wrote:

> "Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message 
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050223222353.20515E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

> RE: SHOW ME ONE Lie of Ward Churchill::

Is that a direct quote, or your imaginating kickin' in agin' ?


> (several listed but snipped or ignored)

> >> >> Not to mention his erroneous claims that "Jews" were the real culprits 
> >> >> on 9-11.

> >> > How about a citation?

> > How about a citation?

> Changing the subject Carol AGAIN?? DUCK AND WEAVE... Get the first oens.. 

Oens?  What are those?

> We'll GET to that one.


> >> >> of doctoring footnotes, claiming to prove that
> >> >> a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan Indians of the Midwest in 1837 
> >> >> was
> >> >> deliberately introduced by U.S. Army, when in fact the sources he 
> >> >> cited
> >> >> said the disease was accidentally spread by traders."

> NO COMMENT --- AVOIDING the direct FABRICATION of material and
> plagerizing [sic] things.

Would you care to make that into a complete sentence?


> >> > Interesting.  I would like to read original source documents on this
> >> > before I venture an opinion.

> >>  Carol LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE......

> > No.  It is not a lie at all.  I said that I would like to read original
> > source documents on this before I venture an opinion, and that is the
> > absolute truth.

> Well Carol THEN that is YOUR obligation. The FACT is that Chucrchill's 
> claims that a "biological earfare unit ofd the U.S. Army plotted to commit 
> genicide on the Indian people" citing the 1837 events was a BALD FACE LIE.. 
> NEVER HAPPEND! "original source documents' on a FICTITIOUS EVENT Carol? HOW? 
> FROM WHERE?

Before I comment on what Ward Churchhill wrote, I would prefer to read
what he wrote.  I would not venture to form an opinion on what you say he
wrote.

> >> You asked for "REFERENTS" and I
> >> provided them you SNIPPED them AGAIN!
> >> Disregarded them or rationalized them.

> > I snipped what were allegations.  I did not snip proof.

> Carol YOU don't get to decide what is proof. I sourced my statements. If 
> Churchill's former wife wrote an article some years before (COPYRIGHTED AND 
> PUBLISHED) and then Churchill later included her work and claimed it as HIS 
> is very much PROOF that he LIED.

Perhaps you could provide a link to information about this.

> >> Must I post them EVERY DAMNED MESSAGE? This gets SOOOOOOO OLD and NO 
> >> annoying.
 
> > Tough.
 
> No Carol PROOF that you are DISHONEST!  Thanks for TWICE in a short space 
> that you DELETE things that you don't like and then go on to claim that no 
> proof was offered at all. THAT little girl is LYING!

I don't consider your comments as any sort of proof.
 
> >> I posted the references to where Churchill's claims of Indian heritage 
> >> are rebuked.

> > I have seen no proof either way.
 
> Yes Carol - in psychology we call that "living in denial."  It's all there. 
> Churchill makes SPECIFIC CLAIMS... That he got his indian blood from a 
> SOURCE, that source denies the claim, saying he is NOT indian but "white." 

Of what "SOURCE" do you speak.  Are you suggesting that his
great-great-grandfather came to you in a dream?

Been too long in the sweat lodge, Tonto?

> To YOU that is NOT PROOF! To the THINKING world (the not bullshit infested) 
> that IS PROOF!  He has consistenly LIED his ass off about Indian heritage. 
> Maybe I am sensitive to this becayse my first wife WAS 50% native American.

So, she wasn't a "keeper" ??

My son-in-law is 100% indigenous.  And I think he is a keeper.

> Complete with tribal registery [sic] so i know what a REAL native
American is, and I have three daughters that are also on tribal roles. So
cut your  BULLSHITTING Ms., Smith! After a while it gets offensive. The
man if he has  ANY (and I suspect I have as much as HE does) it isn't
 much. My present wife  (Cuban) has "indiginous" [sic] blood. She is
mostly of Spanish heritage but has  some native blood as well. Her
ancestors were there to welcome Columbus when  he landed in Cuba.>>

Thank you so much for the pithy family history.

> >> I posted where even his former wife accuses him of plagiarizing HER
> >> earlier published works and claiming them as his own.

> > Are you saying that what you posted was absolute proof that any
> > allegations by his wife were true?

> Well some things are FACTS Caol

The name's Carol.

> no matter how they upset your EXTREMIST political views.

Your crystal ball is cracked.

> The woman's works were PUBLISHED as were that of Churchill. 
> Media bveen all over that one. Her work came years first, publioshed, 
> copyrights, then his work lifting whole secitions of hers with NO 
> attribution. THAT is fraud and plagerism [sic].
 
You can provide cites for that information any time you are ready.

Until I read a reliable source, I have no opinion to share.  You can
continue to offer your opinion til the cows come home.  I am not
interested in forming an opinion based upon yours.

 > >> (ACADEMIC FRAUD
> >> CAROL!) Not to mention the FALSE claims of the U.S. Army biological 
> >> warfare
> >> against the Indians being a product of his own mind.  NEVER HAPPENED 
> >> CAROL!!
 
> > I never claimed it did happen.  I asked for detail and proof and evidence.

> Carol it did NOT happen. 

See above.

<snip Kenneth R. Pangborn's interpretation of history>
 
> > I reserve judgment until I have it.  That is the only honorable stance, as
> > far as I am concerned.
 
> Carol........... it is a tap dance.

Why do you think it necessary I agree with you?  

> The evidence is there. What DID happen 
> is well documented in history. The sources I gave had further LINKS to that 
> information. That YOU in your ARROGANCE refuse to follow those links is NOT 
> MY PROBLEM it is YOUR DISHONESTY!

To what dishonesty do you refer?

What did I insist was true which isn't?

Please provide appropriate citations.