Heath Urie Is A Flat-Out Liar
October 8th, 2007
Who the hell is Heath Urie you ask? Well, he’s the reporter from the Daily Camera who showed up last night at the Ward Churchill class organized by CU students. I can count about six lies throughout his article, but the biggest comes at the end.
Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them “agitators.”
One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.
I was one of the two men, and according to Mr. Urie last night, it was I who pushed him, and the other gentleman who grabbed his arm. He was so sure of this, he sent several CUPD officers down with a description of me and the other gentleman, and an elaborate fantasy of being assaulted. Again, with me doing the pushing, and the other gentleman doing the grabbing.
Nice to see he’s already changing his story, don’t you think?
The real story as follows.
There were several reasons the Daily Camera shitheels weren’t let in. One damn good one is that the Daily Camera photographer, Joshua Lawton, had already violated Professor Churchill’s trust once, snapping a picture of one Churchill’s students during the initial scandal, and publishing it on the front page, after being specifically told to keep his camera off the students. But the main reason is that this was a student-organized event, and the student-organizers didn’t want ‘em there. They have the right not have these little pricks poking cameras in their faces and recording every word they say. And, as Churchill’s syllabus made very clear, the class ain’t a media event. (That said, an exception was made for two members of the CU student press. They’re students, and they still have the opportunity to set right their lives, and pursue an honest profession.)
The two Daily Camera shitbirds, Mr. Lawton and Mr. Urie, were confrontational from the get-go. They were waiting outside the classroom, and immediately jumped in Professor Churchill’s face as he arrived for class. He told them several times he had no comment for them. They then asked if they could attend the class, and were told no. (Although, that was later modified; Professor Churchill told Mr. Urie he could attend next week, without camera or recording devices, if he could show that he’d read the material. Having met Mr. Urie, I find it unlikely he could read the denser portion of his own newspaper, let alone a full-length book.) They did their required share of whining, bellowing, and etc., trying their damnedest to get someone to react to them. They were summarily ignored, of course.
Then, the little shits got busted trying to slip a digital recorder to three students entering the class. (Sound familiar? Why is it that these media types are so fucking inept, anyway?) Those are the three students turned away to which Mr. Urie refers. (Funny, how he left that part out.) When they were turned away, a whole new furor of shrieking and hair-tearing on the part of the Daily Camera crew ensued. Which, again, was ignored. And we all entered the classroom, sat down, and got to work.
Next thing we knew, Mr. Urie barged into the classroom, and strode towards Professor Churchill, shouting. He was holding a digital recorder in his hand, and obviously trying to provoke an incident. I and the other gentleman in question stood and approached him. I put my hand on him to stop his advance, and told him he had to leave. The other gentleman took him by his arm to escort him out, telling him the same. This set him into one of those panicky, arm-flailing, epileptic-type fits which seem so endemic amongst the local media and bloggers (no link), so I turned and asked another of the organizers to call CUPD. But when I turned back around, Mr. Urie had already decided to exit of his own volition. That was your grabbing of the arm and pushing.
About ten minutes later, CUPD showed up to inform us that Mr. Urie was set to file the aforementioned assault charges against us. We laughed, told them the story, and returned to class. Twenty or so minutes later, they returned to let us know that they’d spoken to Mr. Urie, informing him that he needed to act like a professional, that he wasn’t allowed to enter the classroom, and that he wasn’t allowed to harass people outside the classroom; he could politely request comment, but if told to get lost, he needed to leave his target alone. That seemed eminently reasonable to us, and we told CUPD as much.
Of course, at the break, Mr. Urie ignored these directives entirely, and began to harass Professor Churchill again. To his scant credit, we only had to remind him three or four times that he was out of line before he stalked off.
So, there you have it. According to CUPD, Mr. Urie is attempting to file assault charges, and detectives may contact us to pursue the matter.
They won’t, of course. Mr. Urie is a corny little asshole who tried his best to provoke an incident to fabricate a story. He couldn’t, so he did the best with what he had. It’s trumped up horseshit for his National Enquirer knock-off rag. But I’ll keep you updated.
Update: I still haven’t been charged with anything. Nor contacted by anyone. But word is that police are trying to serve the other gentleman with a physical harassment warrant. Which is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor up there with smoking in a public place. Heath Urie is still a lying little asshole, of course. His initial allegation was that I assaulted him. He’s now changed his story entirely, putting it all on the other gentleman.
Update II: The Campus Press has a pretty good article penned by Rob Ryan. Including a quote about whether the organizers have the right to refuse media from someone who might actually know what they’re talking about.
“It’s fairly common in discourse that private people are subject to the First Amendment. They’re not,” [CU Law Professor Richard Collins] said.
Collins did suggest that some states may have statutes that forbid secret meetings in any form, such as the Sunshine Law in Colorado, but that these laws typically do not apply to students.
“I’d be startled if students were subject to Sunshine,” Collins said.
Update III: A Try-Works commenter has another idea on how we should approach this. Namely, that we should take the Daily Camera to court.
In my experience the only thing that will stop anyone from attacking others in the manner the Camera did is civil lawsuits. I have had police urge me to file civil lawsuits as they said that I would most likely win and that was the safest way to seek justice. This does not mean I am lawsuit happy. In fact, I would rather not have to take anyone to court. Unfortunately the harassment gets so bad that I have had no other choice but to file lawsuits and criminal charges in certain cases.
Let’s look at the facts of this incident. Judges love facts backed up with hard evidence. You have witnesses that a Camera reporter barged in and made a bee line for Ward. You have witnesses that would testify that it appeared the reporter was going to attack Ward physically by the way he rushed towards Watd in a threatening and angry manner. You have witnesses that can prove the reporter seemed very agitated and angry and that it appeared that Ward was going to be physically attacked or verbally threatened to the detriment of Ward and also other students in the class.
You prevented that attack in a careful manner and it appears to me the Camera reporter filed a false police report. The police have a duty to bring charges against the reporter. You have witnesses to him barging in. You have witnesses that he was causing trouble and harassing both Ward and students who support Ward and his philosophy. The Camera allegedly prevented people from learning in a safe and non-threatening environment and that is against the law.
Here is what you do sir: get written statements from the students who were asked to hide recording devices in their back-packs. Get signed statements from people who witnessed the reporter bum rush Ward. Get written statements that the reporter allegedly acted in a threatening and belligerent manner towards Ward and students and USA citizens attending the class.
Obviously you can take care of yourself physically and so can Ward but that does not give the reporter the right to endanger your safety and the safety of other students by barging in like he did. With written statements you have a case in civil court that would be tough to beat in my opinion. Remember the truth is on your side. Justice is slow but the truth always makes it worth seeking. You were gentle on the reporter and acted in a cautious and careful manner when escorting him out of the room. Other students saw this so get statements from them and present your case to a judge. Gather all that hard evidence and then pursue civil and criminal charges against the Camera.
Look for a lawyer who works on a contingency bases. With enough written statements saying students felt threatened by the reporter barging in the police have no choice but to file charges against the reporter. That reporter created a hostile environment in my opinion and that is a violation of federal law as people have the right to learn in a non-threatening environment.
CU gets federal money and so federal laws apply as well as state and local. Do not be scared of the Camera. As citizens of the USA and especially on a college campus we have the right to learn and listen to speakers without malcontents barging in and threatening people. The reporter headed straight for Ward in a threatening manner. He basically broke into the room when he was told specifically to stay out. In my opinion the reporter broke many laws including a few federal one as he endangered students who were there to learn.
Update IV: There’s already one letter to the editor in at the Daily Camera regarding their horseshit coverage of Ward Churchill’s guerilla class at CU. The writer ain’t confused in the least about what the reporter was up to. Nor has anyone else been that I’ve been hearing from.
I still haven’t had any charges filed against me, but I am begging you to file them, Mr. Urie. We will take it to trial. We’ve got dozens of witnesses to back us up. We will run fucking roughshod over you.
The Daily Camera misrepresented Tuesday’s on-campus lecture by Ward Churchill. Out of curiosity I attended the lecture, and what I witnessed was not as The Daily Camera reported. To begin with, The Camera underreported attendance by over half (attendance was closer to 70 people, rather than 30). More importantly, they reported that three students were turned away for being “agitators” and that a reporter was “grabbed and pushed… prompting a report to police”. This is spin. The three students were turned away for attempting to sneak in a recording device given to them by a reporter. The reporter, out of options for recording inside the room, entered the classroom and refused to leave, effectively disrupting the beginning of the lecture. The police arrived later because the press was causing a ruckus and disrupting classes.
This series of incidents demonstrated exactly why Professor Churchill did not want reporters inside the lecture to begin with. The Daily Camera, mistaken again, thought that this was the most significant aspect of the evening, the sub-headline reads, “Controversial prof bars press”. The reporting focused on the press’ own role. They created a controversy, falsely reported the incident, and then suggested that the real news was that they were barred.
What the press missed entirely was the real significance of Ward Churchill’s new lecture series. What happened on Tuesday was an experiment in academic freedom, a course sponsored entirely by students, free of charge and open to all who come to learn. The justifications given in July for firing Professor Churchill included that he falsified information, how ironic that the reporting of his continued presence seems to do the same.
Update V: I can’t believe I missed this, but according to the Campus Press, the Daily Camera release a statement in response to my take on the evening’s events, as follows.
We believe that our reporter, Heath Urie, acted ethically and responsibly while covering Ward Churchill’s class (Tuesday) night. He simply was attempting to ascertain why another news organization, the Campus Press, was allowed to have reporters and a photographer in the class, while all others were excluded. We fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.
That’s a lie. We’d already addressed Mr Urie’s concerns about the Campus Press being allowed in the classroom. We’d already explained why. He was trying to disrupt the class and provoke an incident, pure and simple.
Update VI: I just sent this letter to the Daily Camera. We’ll see how open their new letter-to-the-editor blog feature really is.
I was one of the two men, who, according to your reporter, refused to allow student “agitators” into the Ward Churchill class on October 2nd. The reason being that your reporter, Mr. Urie, was using them to smuggle in a recording device after being expressly told they were disallowed.
I was also involved in ejecting your reporter from the classroom. He’d been told repeatedly he wasn’t allowed in the classroom, and he barged in after class had begun, and advanced on Ward Churchill, shouting. He had no questions we hadn’t already answered. His sole purpose was to disrupt the class and provoke an incident he could then write up in the Daily Camera. I don’t know what kind of tactics are considered acceptable by the Daily Camera’s editorial staff, but Mr. Urie’s would be scorned by the National Enquirer.
Moreover, his claim of being assaulted is a joke. I put my hand on him to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.
Mr. Urie has also changed his story at least once, claiming to CUPD that I shoved him, and that he would be pressing assault charges against me. Of course, I did no such thing, which is probably why those assault charges have never materialized. But I eagerly await them. I have at least three dozen witnesses who saw what happened, and I would like nothing more than to take Mr. Urie to trial. I demand Mr. Urie live up to his word and file assault charges against me immediately.
Benjamin Whitmer
Instructor, Ethnic Studies
University of Colorado
Update VII: Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I now have a new quote for our list of citations. “Thuggish as ever,” it is.
Update VIII: Everybody’s jabbering on about whether or not the students have the right to close Ward Churchill’s class. CU’s rules and regulations are real clear. Students have the absolute right to “set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media.”
It ain’t an open event. That’s been made abundantly clear. Attendance is at the discretion of the students. No one else gets a say. When a weaselly little shit like Mr. Urie barges in the classroom, he’s trespassing. It doesn’t what his reason is. In my opinion, we were more than restrained in our treatment of him.
Policy on the Use of University Facilities
V. Open Meetings
Those who qualify to schedule the use of University facilities may set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media, and such policies shall be stated at the time of scheduling. If such scheduled activities are closed to the public, they may be open or closed to the news media at the discretion of the sponsoring user. If such scheduled activities are open to the public, they are open to the news media. Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any open meeting. The presiding officer shall be the judge of whether such use is obtrusive and may, at his/her discretion, request persons to stop using their cameras or recording devices in a fashion which he/she deems to be obtrusive.
Update IX: As of last night, October 6, no warrant for the arrest of either myself or the gentleman I was with has been issued. Another lie from the Daily Camera.
Update X: As poot and WTF have pointed out in the comments, some little idiot by the name of Jessica Peck Corry, from our local faux-libertarian group, the Independence Institute, has weighed in at the Rocky Mountain News.
To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.
Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.
Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.
In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.”
While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.
University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.
First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.
This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.
Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.
For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.
In order. For the thousandth time.
1. As even Bronson Hilliard has “emphasized,” the event is private. If you don’t like how the organizers are determining enrollment, sue CU.
2. No one was turned away because of their “core beliefs.” The three young men who were turned away, were turned away because they were trying to smuggle in a recording device for Heath Urie. We’re not giving quizzes on core beliefs at the door. We’re turning away the media and known entities — i.e., bloggers who have tried to smuggle recording devices into other events held by students — and we will be ejecting disruptive influences. That doesn’t have anything to do with ideology, it has to do with a bunch of whiny little shits who can’t obey the stated rules. The rules ain’t gonna change.
3. And, yeah, private organizers are allowed to ban the media. If you want a hell of a glimpse as to why no one wants the fucking media around, take a look at Heath Urie’s little gotcha journalism stunt.
4. Kool Aid? I know you rightwing loons like your clichés, er, tried and true, but good God, that one’s been a dead metaphor since calling college students “bright-eyed.”
Oh. Right.
Must be the “critical thimking” these fuckers are so proud of.
Shit, did it again.
Just call me a “useful idiot.”
Update XI: The Campus Press has an interview with me here. The student journalists are a hell of a lot better than the so-called professionals, but there ain’t nothing you haven’t already heard.
Update XII: The aforementioned little idiot Jessica Peck Corry has a blog. There’s no place for comments as far as I could tell.
Update XIII: Heath Urie didn’t show this evening, no warrants were served, even I’m bored of this post.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
So what was the lie?
You call these reporters a bunch of derogatory names but then confirm their side of the story.
You thugs have to realize that freedom of the press is far more powerful than your intimidation tactics. If your “hero” Churchill is all you make him out to be, let the press in and report it. All this does is to continue Churchill’s rep as a gang leader bent on mafioso-like tactics of intimidation. Some professor.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
His lies in order:
1. He lied to CUPD, in telling them that he was assaulted. And you don’t have to take my word for it. If he was assaulted, charges will be filed and pressed. I’ll keep you posted.
2. He changed his story in the article. He told CUPD that I pushed him and that the other gentlemen grabbed his arm; in his article he’s now saying that the other gentleman both pushed him AND grabbed his arm. I think even he figured out that his first version was ridiculous on its face.
3. I think it’s fair to call it a lie by omission when he states: “Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them ‘agitators.’” The reason the kids were turned away is because they were trying to sneak in a recording device which he provided them — in express violation of the rules stated by the organizers.
4. I also think it’s fair to call it a lie by omission when he describes himself as “a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room.” He barged in belligerently, shouting, after being told repeatedly he could not enter. Our response was perfectly appropriate. And, again, if you don’t think so, stick around. We’ll see if the charges stick, won’t we?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Suffer.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Please look into filing harassment charges against the Camera. Take them to civil court as well. Also talk with the detectives because it appears to me the Camera was complicit in helping a reporter file a false police report which is a felony if that is true. I think you all should contact a civil lawyer and commence legal action against the Camera. I believe you have a strong case against the Camera. Maybe the CU law department can point you in the right direction? Ward has been harassed for years on end and the only thing that will end it is losses for his harassers in criminal and civil courts. Instead of cursing the Camera out file a lawsuit against them and have your say in the proper forum.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
To paraphrase George Carlin, I’d rather watch flies fuck.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
“I put my hand on him to stop his advance, and told him he had to leave. The other gentleman took him by his arm to escort him out, telling him the same. This set him into one of those panicky, arm-flailing, epileptic-type fits which seem so endemic amongst the local media and bloggers (no link)”
And are we to expect that you wouldn’t write this to put yourself in a rosier light? As soon as you and the other person made contact with Mr. Urie, you committed assault. It is a fact.
And I love your claim of epileptic fit that so many people are prone to here.. funny, in all the media circuses I have borne witness to, I have yet to see such a thing. It sounds like you’re bitter about way too many things in life.
Here are my questions for you: are id’s and enrollment status checked for every person who entered the room to ensure that they were students or was the event open to the public? If it was open to the public, there may be some grey area there as to whether you had the right to turn away the media and or any individuals…
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
I don’t give a shit what you expect, nor what you believe. Again, if I assaulted Mr. Urie, charges will be pressed. They haven’t been, and they aren’t gonna be, because he’s a lying little punk.
As to your question: who gets in is at the discretion of the organizers. They can check IDs or not, and they can kick out anybody they want. That’s the way it is. If you don’t like it, sue ‘em.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
The only charges I could see being issued by the police would be trespassing by Urie.
This person had no more right to bust into that room than he would have had a right to bust into the Board of Regent’s deliberations when they were considering firing Churchill. It’s a public campus. That is not the same as saying the public can wander freely into any room at any time. Try that excuse to jump onto the football field on game day and let’s see what happens….
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“The only charges I could see being issued by the police would be trespassing by Urie.”
No harassment charges or filing a false police report charges? What gives the Camera the right to lie to the police? The reporter looked to me like he wanted to physically attack Ward but was stopped in a careful manner by conscious students. I think Benjamin is being lite on the Camera and could file a civil lawsuit. The absolute only thing that will stop the Camera from filing false reports or attacking people is if they lose in civil court in my opinion. I am curious as to why the two do not consider filing charges against the Camera? Do not let them get away with attacking you (which is in my opinion what happened) and on top of that allegedly lying to the police.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
WTF: email me. benjamin.whitmer@gmail.com
October 4th, 2007 at 12:37 am
On fact with the photographer…
http://www.dailycamera.com/staff/josh-lawton/
…how the hell does he fit into his own motto on his freakin’ bio?
“A photograph is neither taken nor seized by force. It offers itself up. It is the photo that takes you. One must not take photos. ” - Henri Cartier-Bression
October 4th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Benjamin
I can only offer advice to you on this forum. I think Ward is an excellent teacher and an asset to CU . For the last few years I have seen Ward harassed, attacked, slandered and defamed. I can tell you what has worked for me in the past to stop harassment, threats and physical attacks.
I have personally witnessed corporate corruption and it took a full 7 years to send some of the losers to prison and they also lost a bunch of class action lawsuits. It was worth the time and effort I put in holding corporate executives responsible for their actions in both civil and criminal courts. The criminal degenerates laughed and threatened me until the day they reported to prison or lost huge class action lawsuits.
In my experience the only thing that will stop anyone from attacking others in the manner the Camera did is civil lawsuits. I have had police urge me to file civil lawsuits as they said that I would most likely win and that was the safest way to seek justice. This does not mean I am lawsuit happy. In fact, I would rather not have to take anyone to court. Unfortunately the harassment gets so bad that I have had no other choice but to file lawsuits and criminal charges in certain cases.
Let’s look at the facts of this incident. Judges love facts backed up with hard evidence. You have witnesses that a Camera reporter barged in and made a bee line for Ward. You have witnesses that would testify that it appeared the reporter was going to attack Ward physically by the way he rushed towards Watd in a threatening and angry manner. You have witnesses that can prove the reporter seemed very agitated and angry and that it appeared that Ward was going to be physically attacked or verbally threatened to the detriment of Ward and also other students in the class.
You prevented that attack in a careful manner and it appears to me the Camera reporter filed a false police report. The police have a duty to bring charges against the reporter. You have witnesses to him barging in. You have witnesses that he was causing trouble and harassing both Ward and students who support Ward and his philosophy. The Camera allegedly prevented people from learning in a safe and non-threatening environment and that is against the law.
Here is what you do sir: get written statements from the students who were asked to hide recording devices in their back-packs. Get signed statements from people who witnessed the reporter bum rush Ward. Get written statements that the reporter allegedly acted in a threatening and belligerent manner towards Ward and students and USA citizens attending the class.
Obviously you can take care of yourself physically and so can Ward but that does not give the reporter the right to endanger your safety and the safety of other students by barging in like he did. With written statements you have a case in civil court that would be tough to beat in my opinion. Remember the truth is on your side. Justice is slow but the truth always makes it worth seeking. You were gentle on the reporter and acted in a cautious and careful manner when escorting him out of the room. Other students saw this so get statements from them and present your case to a judge. Gather all that hard evidence and then pursue civil and criminal charges against the Camera.
Look for a lawyer who works on a contingency bases. With enough written statements saying students felt threatened by the reporter barging in the police have no choice but to file charges against the reporter. That reporter created a hostile environment in my opinion and that is a violation of federal law as people have the right to learn in a non-threatening environment.
CU gets federal money and so federal laws apply as well as state and local. Do not be scared of the Camera. As citizens of the USA and especially on a college campus we have the right to learn and listen to speakers without malcontents barging in and threatening people. The reporter headed straight for Ward in a threatening manner. He basically broke into the room when he was told specifically to stay out. In my opinion the reporter broke many laws including a few federal one as he endangered students who were there to learn.
This is all the advice I can give. Keep up the good fight and do not let the Camera bully you. The police have a duty to prevent people from bum rushing speakers and they also have a duty to pursue false police reports.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Fair enough, sir/ma’am. I was gonna ask you if you might pen one of those statements and/or be a witness if needed. From your earlier comment it seemed like you were there. If you are willing and were there, email me. If not, understood.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:23 am
While not a fan of Ward in any way, shape or form, I completely sympathize with you in your dealings with this journalist. It appears you displayed patience and restraint.
Again, while I don’t think Ward has anything important to say, I defend his right to be invited, at student expense, to the school to say it without an aggressive and disruptive journalist trying to score an inflammatory article.
Congratulations to you and your partner for not providing him that article.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Thanks, Bruce. It’s nothing but sleazy Gotcha journalism. The reporter was trespassing, plain and simple.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Blah, blah, blah. Spin on both sides.
The hard evidence here is your admission: “Put my hand out”, and “Took his arm”. Maybe you put your hand out in the shape of a fist? Took his arm and shoved him? Kind of like calling your rants civil discourse. It is plainly obvious that your endless name calling reflects your thuggish attitude.
Your arrest warrant is pending, I noticed.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am
No it’s not, idiot. That’s the other gentleman. I already said as much in the first update. If you’re gonna troll around the site, dribbling your insipid commentary all over the place, do try to at least pay attention.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Oh, another bit of advice for your buddy Churchill:
If he’s such a great professor and “asset” to the University, surely there are other Universities lined up to hire him? Why stick around at an institution that doesn’t recognize his great educational value?
Professor Weiman, Nobel prize winner, did just this. He felt he would be more effective elsewhere. Why doesn’t Churchill follow his example?
The question is rhetorical, of course.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Ah, another intelligent response from Chirchill’s minion.
I said your warrent is pending. Look up the word “pending”, genius.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Churchill’s filed a lawsuit which will force CU to reinstate him. Right now, I don’t think anyone believes CU has a very good chance, given their shenanigans. You can find all you want on that in the Churchill Smear section.
And my arrest warrant ain’t pending. To serve a warrant for a misdemeanor, I have to be notified of the charge and there has to have been an attempt to serve me with the ticket. They have my phone number, and no one’s made any attempt to contact me.
Again, do try to keep up.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Your buddy’s gonna roll over on ya.
You don’t need to regurgitate (regurtitate means “to vomit”) the Churchill story. Agreed, this was started as an ill-advised attempt to remove a tumor from the University and they took the wrong path initially, but having Churchill’s pathetic academic record scrutinized has shown a blinding white light on someone obviously neither qualified nor dignified for the post.
Seriously, consider the vast numbers of people on *both* sides of the political spectrum who *do* understand the issue (it’s not new). If he’s so valuable, Universities should be lined up to hire him. There are thousands of places he could teach, no?
Again, compare Ward to Professor Weiman.
Enough of this silliness. Go ahead, use your thuggish Churchill-inspired tactics and call me names, blah, blah, blah. Gettin’ old.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Roll over on me? If there were any validity to Mr. Urie’s initial claim that I shoved him, he’d have filed charges. He hasn’t. He’s a liar. You said there’s an arrest warrant pending for me. There’s not. Meaning, you’re either lying as well, or you’re just not paying attention, which is what I said in the first place. To point out that you’re not paying attention isn’t calling you a name; it’s a statement of fact.
Obviously, Ward Churchill won’t be looking for a job until the court case is concluded. That was the point. As to Ward Churchill’s court case, let’s wait and see. I’ve been predicting from the day after the scandal broke that CU would fire him. I’ve likewise been predicting that he would be vindicated in court. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I ain’t too worried about it. CU already seems to be doing just as brilliant a job of handling the court case as they did the firing.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Benjamin Whitmer: “If I am wrong, I’m wrong.” Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah.
It is nice to see how nonchalant you are about talking out your ass and your incredible ignorance. Good for you. You must be supporting Churchill and attending all these events because (a) you are a trust fund baby and have nothing better to do, or (b) you are secretly going home and laughing your ass off at Churchill every night while pretending to be his friend. Glad to see that you are a secret member of the winning team, and thanks for all the hilarity at Churchill’s expense.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Whitmer, given your penchant for gun fantasies, given your big bold talk about how the thousands of 9/11 dead had it coming, given that your vile idol Chutch has advocated the murder of various types of “suits” over the years — it is quite striking that you have hit the Giant Perimeter Alert Klaxon lever over this tiny, vanishingly petty question of exactly how you or somebody held a reporter’s arm. It must be the most exciting thing that’s happened to you in the last ten years.
What other hard-fought battle action have you been involved in? Let’s see. Laying down like a log on Columbus day so you could get arrested for the misdemeanor of jaywalking. Shrieking insults in the faces of elderly women.
The contrast between your hyperbolic street fighting man fantasies and the actual facts of your life reveal you as - well - petty, small, cowardly, trifling, and sort of gay.
You are a microscopic particle on the lens of a projector, a posturing windbag, a whining little wuss from Dot Avenue.
It has been pointed out that for people such as Chutch (or you for that matter), words are not a call to action but rather a substitute for it.
Word.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hey Colorado Rocky Mountain High, don’t you have your hands full this week blogging about Britney Spears losing her kids?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
You can post under your normal handle, What the. I can see your IP address, the name of the company that owns your servers, your location, etc. Just so you know.
First, I ain’t never claimed to be a “street fighting man,” as you put it with your usual knack for cliche. The only thing I’ve ever said in that regard is that if any of you anonymous trolls who strut around cyberspace would like to meet me after class, you know where I’ll be. I’ll even buy you a cup of coffee, as long as you’re cordial. And, sure, I am somewhat of a gun nut. I grew up shooting, and I enjoy it. I’m also, as you have called me, a bit of a Constitutionalist. Unlike most on either side of the aisle, I like all the Bill of Rights. I don’t cherry pick. As to my support of 9/11, it doesn’t exist. My reading of Churchill’s essay is a bit more nuanced than that. It’s in the Churchill Smear section, if you’d like to revisit it.
But, yeah, I get a kick out of well-phrased violent metaphor. I also kinda like my metaphors on the rowdy, raucous, and obscene side. You could probably gather that from the books I talk about. Dissent in this country is so limited as to be nonexistent. I’d like to see a little more vigor out there. If you don’t like it, don’t read. But given the number of times per day that you pump the refresh button on this site, I’d say at this point I’m a full-blown compulsion with you.
This is a shits-and-grins media blog. I don’t like the tactics employed by the media, and I enjoy picking at ‘em on their own ground. Hell, one has to have a hobby or two, and this is one of mine. So, yeah, I’m gonna get this little jackass for lying. He’s claiming I assaulted him. Now it’s up to him to prove it. I want him to file his promised assault charges against me, and I want to take his ass to court.
Lastly . . . gay?
Why is it you neo-Stalinist nuts immediately reach for the homophobic cliches?
October 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/oct/05/no-headline—05adgt/
DAILY CAMERA: Warrant sought in altercation at Churchill class
A University of Colorado detective is seeking a warrant to arrest a man accused of trying to force a Camera reporter out of Ward Churchill’s lecture on the Boulder campus Tuesday night.
Detective Brian Jordan said he has submitted an affidavit requesting a warrant to arrest the unidentified suspect on a misdemeanor harassment charge.
Reporter Heath Urie told police that one of the men watching the classroom door became physical when he tried to enter the room, grabbing his arm and pushing him.
Jordan said the suspect, whose name was not released, declined to meet him to be ticketed.
The misdemeanor charge carries a possible penalty of six months in jail, and fines up to $750.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Yeah, read it. Again, it ain’t me. Urie said I assaulted him, that I shoved him. He told CUPD as much. They pulled me out of the class with a description. There’s no warrant, no arrest, and as far as I can tell he’s dropped that angle altogether because he knows it’s insupportable in every fucking way. He’s a lying little shit. If he’s at class on Tuesday, I’ll ask him for clarification or retraction.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
We’ve really failed in the last century,” Vine Deloria said. “We’ve identified people by their allegations and not by their true family. Case closed.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:08 am
/Anonymous/What The/Senator Craig double/ wistfully hoped Benji was “sort of gay.”
Hey Benjamin, looks like somebody has a crush on you!
October 6th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Benjamin
What The and WTF are not the same people. The first time I posted I never bothered to change the name to WTF.
“Please look into filing harassment charges against the Camera.”
That post was mine as you can tell by the ip’s. Just to clear that up for others.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:30 am
“Thanks, Bruce. It’s nothing but sleazy Gotcha journalism. The reporter was trespassing, plain and simple.”
I think he did a lot worse than that including approaching Ward in a threatening manner, menacing/harassing Ward, maliciously disrupting class, endangering the safety of all in the room through reckless, violent and disruptive behavior, filing a false police report and iterfering with students rights to learn in a non-hostile environment.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:48 am
That would be “interfering with students rights to learn in a non-hostile environment.”
October 6th, 2007 at 9:59 am
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/speakout/2007/10/churchills_clouded_comeback.html
Churchill’s clouded comeback
Saturday, October 6 at 12:00 AM
By Jessica Peck Corry
You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Ward Churchill is a man who will not give up. While the University of Colorado spent more than two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to kick him off its Boulder campus, he’s back — now teaching an unsanctioned class that espouses the same discredited “facts” that got him fired in the first place.
To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.
Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.
Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.
In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.”
While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.
University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.
First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.
This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.
Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.
For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.
Jessica Peck Corry is the director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project. She can be reached at Jessica@i2i.org.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am
You think Jessica Corry could have done just a little research and found this site? It’s not that hard to find.
Again, not a Churchill fan, but it annoys me when the media can’t or won’t present the whole picture. It strikes me as lazy.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Posting as “Anonymous” was unintentional.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Oh, and “gay” in the South Park sense. A misconceived, hapless, ineffective, unstylish kludge of a concept.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
What the: I didn’t know South Park was in the business of defining the bigotry out of bigoted terms. Silly me.
WTF: Got it. I didn’t figure you were the other one. He stands out, shall we say.
poot, Bruce: Thanks for the heads up. I’ll be tied up most of today, but I’ll get that little idiot in the next couple of days.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Go to www.westword.com and type “heath urie” into the search engine. They’ve written a bunch about him.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:09 am
“What the Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Oh, and “gay” in the South Park sense. A misconceived, hapless, ineffective, unstylish kludge of a concept.
”
Nice dodge Mr. Senator Craig wannabe! — If you don’t like the definition of gay, just retroactively change the definition. Like saying you aren’t gay — you just solicite sex with men in men’s restrooms. I love that one!
‘What The’, keep back-pedaling on the whole gay thing, and you too can keep your Republican Senate seat. Maybe you should just lay low for a while after using a term for sexual orientation as a slur. (Do you even realize that you confirmed your use of ‘gay’ as a slur by claiming that gay equates in your words to “misconceived, hapless, ineffective, unstylish”? You just dug your own hole.)
What is next for you? Are you going to say Benji sounds like a jew because of the way he handles money?
October 7th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
by DCDave
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don’t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Let’s breakdown Jessica’s article:
“You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Ward Churchill is a man who will not give up.”
That is correct. He is a truth seeker and patriot. He calls them like he sees them and refuses to be bullied. He is a dedicated teacher and cares not only for the USA but for each polite student that seeks truth and justice.
“While the University of Colorado spent more than two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to kick him off its Boulder campus, he’s back — now teaching an unsanctioned class that espouses the same discredited “facts” that got him fired in the first place.”
Discredited? The way Professor Churchill has been viciously attacked has lended copious amounts of credibility to his views.
9/11 was an inside job and criminals fear Ward as Ward is a very cultured and wise truth seeker.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loosechange+2&total=459&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
The cost is not CU’s as the taxpayers have funded the diabolical career lynching of Professor Churchill to the detriment of the community and state as a whole. CU malcontents said that they do not mind being sued. They had hoped enough of their uncultured goons would harass and threaten Ward so much that he would leave town. Their minions failed to scare Ward. He has filed his lawsuit and most likely will be vindicated in a court of law.
“To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.”
Liar. Anyone can attend as long as they are polite and did not bring recording devices. Ward’s minions? Ha, Ward does not recruit anyone. He does his research and shares his knowledge. He likes to teach so much that he is donating his time. This enrages the malcontents to no end. Ward is teaching out of the goodness of his heart. Those that oppose Ward are sadists who get violently angry when they see good deeds take place. The hostile reporter bum rushed Ward and disrupted class and that is why he was escorted out in a careful manner. The reporter endangered the safety of students that there trying to learn and maliciously aproached Ward in a threatening manner. The three students not allowed to enter were carrying recording devices and consequently were refused entry. It had nothing do do with their beliefs. Their malicious and threatening actions are what denied them entry and not their beliefs.
“Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.”
They proved to be agitators and liars. There are dozens of witnesses to the angry reporter bum rushing Ward and disrupting class. Most of Ward’s detractors have proven to be angry criminals. Ward has had his property vandalized and has also received threats. It appeared the reporter was a troublemaker not by what the students said or did but solely by the disruptive, menacing and threatening actions of the reporter.
“Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.”
Ha, classic truth suppression paragraph. You sound like a Fox News reporter on that one. You write for the RMN which is on par with The national Enquirer as far as journalistic integrity goes. Ward has to implement security measures because his detractors have proven to be violent liars, criminals, spastic malcontents, hate mongers, menacing dweebs and uncultured ninnies.
“In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.””
Out of the kindness of his heart Ward is sharing his wisdom. That makes the malcontents so very angry!
“While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.”
Ward is not disgraced at all. The dorks that fired him are the disgraced losers who have harmed CU’s reputation irreparably. You can bet I will not donate any money to CU.
“University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.”
The actions being the students ensured a safe learning environment and prevented Ward from being attacked and harassed by what appeared to many to be an angry out-of-control reporter hell bent on disrupting class and endangering the safety of students and Ward.
“First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.”
Your arguments are so weak they are laughable. You work for RMN so we can expect that. To attend the class one must follow the rules. One rule is that no one may bum rush the teacher. Another rule is no recording devices. No one cares about skin color or even if people agree with Ward. People do care that there is a safe learning environment free of spastic, threatening, out-of-control reporters who disrupt class and endanger the safety of teachers and students.
“This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.”
Yawn. You have no game. You are just throwing out pablum at this point. You must get paid extra to carry on in a non-nonsensical way. No surprise you ended up working for RMN.
“Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.”
Perhaps reporters can act in a non-threatening and violent way and do their jobs in a professional accurate manner. So far most media goons have proven to have the maturity levels of spoiled 2 year olds not fit to attend a college level class taught by a patriotic and wise professor such as ward Churchill.
“For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.”
Lol. The only things a person needs to bring is a sense of goodness and a desire to learn in a non-disruptive manner. There is a lot of material to cover and so out-of-control and disruptive goobers bum rushing the stage are not allowed. This is a college level class so those with the maturity levels of spoiled two year olds are not welcome. The RMN and Camera should try attending kindergarten classes and covering the action there as they would fit right in with the students.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
WTF - Thanks for posting the 17 techniques. Pretty powerful stuff. Reading through them I noticed that it’s not just the government that uses these tools. A lot of it seems to depend on which side the media decides to support.
Back in the day when there was only 20 minutes of ABC, CBS, NBC news a night and the NY Times ruled the world, the media was all powerful. (Yes, I’m that old) They could destroy anyone, bring down an administration, and stop a war at will.
Thankfully, the internet has somewhat leveled the playing field and given those that are willing to take a look around the opportunity to get the other side of the story. However, knowing the techniques seems more important than ever.
Thanks again.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“Those who qualify to schedule the use of University facilities may set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media, and such policies shall be stated at the time of scheduling. If such scheduled activities are closed to the public, they may be open or closed to the news media at the discretion of the sponsoring user. If such scheduled activities are open to the public, they are open to the news media. Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any open meeting. The presiding officer shall be the judge of whether such use is obtrusive and may, at his/her discretion, request persons to stop using their cameras or recording devices in a fashion which he/she deems to be obtrusive.”
1. Where is the justification for selective admissions within this regulation? Some students and some “area residents” may attend but not others? How did the organizers decide?
2. How do organizers (or the presiding officer) determine what recording devices are obtrusive before the event begins? Did anyone try to bring in lighting, tripods and large cameras or were all devices small enough to slip into a pocket?
It seems to me that Churchill prefers to be in a position to deny what he has said, knowing his speech isn’t recorded. Furthermore, he prefers to preach to the choir or ignorant innocents without enough education or life experience to make a reasoned conclusion about his “teachings”. Otherwise the organization would allow all who would attend and remove any obtrusive or hostile attendees, if and when they show themselves.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:13 am
No one cares what you think, Laurie. The media ain’t allowed because they pull shit like this regularly. Recording and photos ain’t allowed because the students don’t need their questions and/or photos posted on your dipshit sites. The students have the rights to “set their own policies.” Wnd of story. No one’s being turned away for their point of view; they’re being turned away because they’re either media, trying to record, or are disruptive.
You don’t like it, sue CU. Otherwise, get fucked.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Laurie, what part of ‘closed’ don’t you understand? It was a private event no different than any private event that goes on everywhere everyday. Reporters aren’t allowed to enter a private event in a CU building any more than they are allowed to barge into YOUR home or business and stick their noses into a private event you are conducting. Closed means closed.
Nobody had to determine if any recording device was obtrusive or unobtrusive because “Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any OPEN MEETING.” (caps added)
Since this was not an event open to the public, there is no obligation to allow ANY recording devices, unobtrusive or obtrusive. That line in the regulation clearly says ‘open meetings’, not closed meetings.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Bruce
I do not own a TV so I am out of it’s sphere of influence thank goodness. I have known about the Truth Suppression Techniques for about 10 years now. Once a person knows them it’s very difficult to ever watch TV news or read mainstream media articles again. Watch Fox News with those techniques printed out and you will start laughing as Fox blatantly uses most of those techniques on a daily basis. In the long run those techniques backfire as people who are lifelong learners start to make the connection. It’s true those techniques were used mainly by governments years ago, however, now it’s mostly the mainstream mass media outlets that use them or any criminal organization that wants to try and confuse their victims.
Laurie,
The class never states that people are required to agree with Ward. There are a few basic rules to follow so class can be conducted in an orderly manner. If I bum rushed the stage like the reporter did I would get kicked out in the same exact way.
The class is a privilege and not a right. The rights extend to the private class attendees that they may be free of malcontents barging in and disrupting class. The rights that were violated last class were that of students and the teacher. The Camera is lucky it so far has not been sued. If I had organized the class you better believe I would have filed a lawsuit against the Camera and it’s disruptive reporter.
When have you donated your time? I doubt you ever have. You strike me as a taker and not a giver. Go back to watching television Laurie. Leave the cultured discussions to people that can follow a few basic rules inside a classroom without spazzing out and bum rushing the teacher in a threatening and angry manner.
You can’t spin the event to your sick agenda. Too many witnesses saw the reporter barge in and disrupt class.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Forgot to put WTF on last post.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Nixon,
What part of “for students only and, oh, some select ‘area residents’” don’t you understand. Its either open or closed. Otherwise, its selection at the door. I don’t see that option in the rules.
WTF, I get it. No one expects an open invitation to violent thugs or those who would disrupt the class. The subject was the rule posted by Benjamin. This class met neither option (open to the public/closed to the public).
When have I donated my time? Regularly, all my life and for worthy causes.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Benjamin,
Encourage students to act up at protests, make the choice to get arrested for the cause and the media will take all the pictures of them that anyone could want for their websites. How many 17-20s will be paraded in front of media cameras for “Recreate 68″? I guess there might be some pics at the police station as well. Don’t give me that “protecting the students” crap.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Laurie
Which causes are those? Supporting malcontents barging into free private classes that are being instructed by a respected teacher donating his time? What class do you teach for free? How to be an disruptive agitator and NWO shill 101? Are you a kindergarten public school teacher perhaps?
You and your ilk do expect an open invitations to cause trouble. The people that got kicked out broke the rules and disrupted class. The reporter angrily bum rushed Ward and disrupted class. There are several dozen wittinesses to this fact. Other malcontents were caught red handed trying to sneak recording devices in at the request of the angry reporter. There is absolutely no way you can spin this to your advantage. Facts are facts. The reporter acted like a thug IMO. He should be charged with criminal trespass at the very least.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
You are hyperventilating, WTF. Stop now. You know nothing about me. I’m not “spinning” anything. I’m not a trouble maker at all. Anyone can tell you that I went to Churchill’s event in April and never said a word, never took a picture. I sat next to Ken Bonetti, who was very nice. I just listened. Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be permitted to attend Churchill’s class. I would be interested (although sceptical) in hearing his lectures.
I don’t buy into Churchill’s defense of his scholarship or the notion that progressives should support every progressive cause, whether we agree or not (Solidarity). Likewise with conservative causes. Some I think are good and some are not. Your spiritual beliefs and mine are personal and no one elses business.
I do believe that there are injustices and Native Americans get the short end of the stick, every time, only because they are perceived as powerless. Believing this doesn’t mean I have to swallow whole every horror story filled with propaganda told at the bully Churchill pulpit. Lies and exaggerations hurt every cause.
Feeding people, comforting wounded veterans in the hospital, making and giving gifts to orphans, supporting programs for the disabled, having students and others over for a holiday dinner when they expected to be alone, sharing information about a disease I have with a child who has just been diagnosed, visiting people at nursing homes and not just during holidays, giving (not selling) my blood, holding classes for new mothers and for breast feeding mothers, coaching natural child birth, volunteering thousands of hours over the years for teens, taking a woman on a daytrip who is elderly and alone and many, many other donations of time and money.
These are things I do always because it is the right thing to do. I’m not wealthy. I’m never paid, almost never get news coverage, don’t figure I’m assured a place in Heaven, don’t hope a court will go easy on me for my “good works” (haha! I’ve never been in trouble!), don’t think these things make me better than you and I never take a tax break for my efforts.
I’m an accountant, work full time and raised 3 children. Two just graduated from college, one at Boulder and one at Denver (I paid for both, which wasn’t easy) and one is DD, adult and lives nearly independantly. No, WTF, I’m not really a taker and by giving, I’m really living!
Now Benjamin will be mad at you “encouraging” me to tell you about my life. Tough. Why should I care? You need to know that things are not as black and white as some would have you believe.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
God, this is great. If it comes to it, Benjie, I’ll be happy to testify about your and the other little Churchills’ (and Churchill’s own, of course) prior thuggish behavior and illegal limiting of access to public lectures.
I’d enjoy that. Almost as much as I’d enjoy telling the noble History of the Try-Works Blog.
By the way, you sound a little hysterical, Benjie. All that swearing. The twitchingly repeated “ain’t.” Get hold of yourself, man.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Laurie said:
“It seems to me that Churchill prefers to be in a position to deny what he has said, knowing his speech isn’t recorded. Furthermore, he prefers to preach to the choir or ignorant innocents without enough education or life experience to make a reasoned conclusion about his “teachings”. Otherwise the organization would allow all who would attend and remove any obtrusive or hostile attendees, if and when they show themselves.”
For what it’s worth Laurie, I can’t find much to disagree with in this statement. But what exactly is wrong with it? Would it make you feel much, much better if they rented the VFW Hall and did it there? I hardly think the university students are as delicate as you seem to. If they want to spend their money renting a place where they can listen to him without disruption, and his conditions are that there isn’t any media and no tape recorders, then I say let them. Cripes, most rock groups have the same demands.
It’s best they get a good chance to listen very closely to what he says so that they’ll be able to recognize this sort of thing when they’re older. That’s how they become wiser.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Glad you’re enjoying, Mr. Martin. I am as well. Do me a favor, contact the Camera and do anything you can to get them to press charges against me.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:53 am
What about your husband? Are you divorced? Did your husband pay for your house, child support, your education and alimony? Obviously he helped you have kids but is that all he did according to you? Did you file false charges against your husband?
It is nice to read that you donate your time and give back to the community. I support, encourage and thank you for your service in that regard.
A college degree says nothing about a person’s moral make-up nor does it say anything about their sense of patiotism. I have helped send a lot of corporate accountants to prison by the way and they all had college degrees. This is probably what I sensed about you from your very first post and is most likely the reason for the friction between us. There is a big difference between having a degree and being a scholar.
Ward got too close to the truth about 9/11 so the malcontents are trying to silence him. Ward has not lied about anything. Ward disagrees with the governments notion that the Calvary did not infect blankets with small pox. His research leads him to conclude that the Cavlary did indeed infect and distribute those blankets. The government can not prove it did not instruct The Calvary to infect the blankets and Ward can not prove it did. The circumstantial evidence points towards the government infecting the blankets. Ward is entitled to talk about how he believes Native American Indians were/are the victims of genocide.
Read about the Northwoods plan and watch the movie Loosechange 2. Read the truth suppression techniques and watch TV. Look at the way the Twin Towers were demolished. Find out about the dancing and clapping Israelis who watched the towers being demolished.
Maybe you work for the government and are not allowed to question anything? Maybe you are a pencil pusher afraid to take a stand and lose your job? It takes a lot of cash to live in Boulder and most people will overlook crime to keep their jobs from what I have seen. I have seen people lie and commit crimes just to keep a $35,000 a year job. Imagine if one makes several hundred thousand dollars a year. Not everyone is a crook, however, I have noticed that the very people that call Ward a liar are liars themselves with a penchant for violent behavior.
Ward has the spirit of many honorable Native American Indians and he is a patriot. He would rather help people find the truth then be silent about crimes against humanity. Ward is a pusher of free thought and a truth seeker. He also is polite, calm and insists his students be able to learn in a non-threatening environment. Ward was unjustifiably fired for exposing the MO of the sadist unpatriotic goons that carried out 9/11 IMO. Ward is addressing his concerns in a court of law. He is not barging into the Camera or anyone else’s place of business. He is calmly going about teaching which is what he loves to do. The malcontents are the ones that are hyperventilating and shown by the spastic angry way the Camera reporter disrupted class.
The reporter’s actions are what this article is about. I do not know the history you have with Ward so I do not know if you would be allowed to attend or not. Since you are defending an angry reporter that bum rushed Ward, disrupted class and support three students who tried to sneak in recording devices then I doubt you would be invited in. Of course Ward is a lot more forgiving then I am so who knows.
The only people mad at Ward are abusive criminals and NWO lackeys. Ward is a gentleman and scholar who risked his entire career to state his views about 9/11.
Here are what some very smart non-violent scholarly types say about 9/11:
http://www.st911.org/
October 8th, 2007 at 6:58 am
“You need to know that things are not as black and white as some would have you believe.”
Ha, your last sentence was a truth suppression technique! Guess which one?
The concept of following a few simple rules is not complicated. Honesty and forthrightness are not complicated concepts. The obvious is not complicated. A third grader could see that the Camera reporter was angry, barged in after being told to stay out and disrupted class.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Hey, I bet that’s what the hold up is! The reason no charges have been served to Benjamin, and no warrant has been issued for the other gentleman is because they have been waiting for Mr. Martin to return from his trip so that they can acquire his ever so vital information before moving forward with their case.
Ha! Mr. Martin, you crack me up!!! Have you seriously not figured out that everyone thinks you are a freak of nature? Even the media crackpots get that “deer in headlights” look when they see you coming. With your spastic behavior, you can’t possibly believe that your testimony would viewed as advantageous (well, not to anyone you would be trying to help anyways).
October 8th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Oh, I’m sure you’re enjoying this, Benjie. I can tell by the hysterical swearing and name-calling. You’ve also been hitting the Jim Beam while blogging again, as your incoherent post on the supposed jailhouse beatdown shows. Not a good idea for you, Benjie. You don’t hold your liquor well at all.
By the way, you never said if you were arrested at the Columbus Day protest. I suppose that means no. Couldn’t risk it, huh? Especially after the Daily Camera incident. Well, at least you kept the shine on those stomping boots, you chinless little stormtrooper, you.
And WTF? Seek help, or at least for God’s sake learn how to spell “cavalry.” (Such quality in your supporters, Benjie.)
October 8th, 2007 at 9:06 am
That last was me, of course. MK, how you doing, you little psycho? Glad to crack you up!!!(See what I mean about the quality of your supporters, Benjie?)
October 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Mr. Martin’s highest quality supporter: Snapple.
Face it, you’re a laughingstock.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
WTF,
Show me where I’ve supported the Camera reporter.
I’ve simply said that Benjamin’s posting of the rules for campus facilities free use was silly, since the organizers stated the class was open to students only and then permitted “area residents” to attend. It appears that attendees were selected at the door. I don’t know anything about the reporter except what I’ve read. He couldn’t get in, knew that the student news and non-student “area residents” could, and barged in after the doors were closed to demand an explanation. True? If he acted as you say he did, that could be intimidating to anyone. Big mistake. Then two men put their hands on him to forcibly remove him. Also a big mistake, although understandable if they really thought the Camera reporter was a threat to Churchill and the students. Is that what they thought?
No, I’m not divorced. I’ve never received child support, alimony, welfare or a lawsuit settlement of any kind and I’ve never asked for or expected any of the above. My home is my personal asset purchased by me long before our marriage. The only gift was that the first house was $26,000 and the asset grew over many years. My husband works hard and contributes to our household. Putting our children through college cost us the equivalent of 1 1/2 years take home pay. We preferred to pay it rather than have our kids start out their adult lives with big student loans.
If you have helped send crooked accountants to jail, I thank you for your part in that. Accountancy is a position of trust and some people think they are exempt from following the rules. Obviously, these people are willing to trade tomorrow for today as their careers are destroyed. Pretty adolescent, isn’t it?
I work for a university consortium. What I do with my own time doesn’t concern my employer in the least. I’ve had a stroke. That’s the only thing that scares me, WTF. That young man from AIM who threatened me might need to hurry up. I think my doctors may get to me before he ever has a chance.
I don’t agree with your assessment of Ward Churchill. Furthermore, if you read that list again, you might find yourself noticing that these same tactics have been used by Churchill repeatedly. Every argument has an element of truth but, WTF, don’t ignore what you know to be false and can’t reconcile. There are shades of gray.
No thanks needed for my participation in life. The opportunities and ideas that presented themselves were and are blessings. However, you should be aware that I see Ward Churchill as a snake oil salesman who has the potential to enrage some young innocents over falsehoods and half truths, thus destroying themselves and wasting their lives as surely as a suicide bomber will do. And he will never confess any responsibility for the acts he incites but wouldn’t risk his sorry ass to commit himself. Do you really want people to impose their views “by any means necessary” when they are unable to persuade? What comes after “US off the planet”?
Thank you for communicating with me on these issues. Its annoying to me that Russell Means can talk about his family and his personal life to illustrate how he comes to his conclusions while Benjamin ridicules others for doing the same. But that’s Benjamin…annoying.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
A CU spokesman reportedly told Mr. Martin (9-26-07) that CU rules require that the meeting be open:
“If certain student groups want to sponsor these types of events, that is their business…
this is open to all students. That means any fee paying students and no student (College Repub, Campus Press student or otherwise) can be turned away. The media cannot be turned away either because these classes are being held on a public campus in a public building.”
October 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“I work for a university consortium.”
Of course you do. That would explain a lot about your vitriol against Ward and your blind acceptance of the official 9/11 fable even though plenty of evidence points to it being an inside job. You are part of the zombie masses afraid to really look into what happened on 9/11. You blindly attack Ward because he got too close to the truth about your masters. You are locked-in to your job which is exactly what your masters want. Ward is not locked into his job and this upsets the establishment more then anything in the world.
“Putting our children through college cost us the equivalent of 1 1/2 years take home pay.” Of course it did. That is what your masters want. They want you to be afraid to question why you are a slave to money. A college degree to NWO minions is proof of their sadistic indoctrination. To Ward’s supporters a degree is just the start of a lifetime of learning and growing in a healthy way. Here is a story about a woman with a college degree. I worked security at an amusement park when I was a teen. We caught on film a woman stealing about $150 worth of merchandise. We asked her to empty her purse after we observed her stealing and it was on tape. She looked me right in the eyes and said she could not have possibly stolen anything because she has a college degree. Needless to say she was arrested and convicted.
Do you want to know what has almost got me banned from college campus? It’s not my 9/11 views it is the fact that I tell students that college need not be so expensive. Here is a link to a PHP script that can put most college courses online and it’s free: http://moodle.org/ Hmm, a free script yet all the powers that be in Colorado keep saying they need to raise tuition and that college expenses must continue to go up. College is expensive so people live in fear of not being able to pay tuition and so the power elite can continue to wage class warfare. Did you know that right now for $500 a person can get study material to CLEP out of the first two years of college? You know what Colorado’s response to that fact is? No person can transfer more then 6 hours of CLEP credits!
What truth suppression tactics has Ward used? Eichmann was a real person. He was a pencil pusher. He did what his masters told him to do. So while Eichmann did not pull the trigger at concentration camps, his zombie pencil pushing at the request of his masters led to the deaths of many innocent people. You refuse to research 9/11 because it would cost you your job. The only way to keep your job is to do as your masters say and attack Ward.
“If you have helped send crooked accountants to jail, I thank you for your part in that.”
I did and your welcome.
“However, you should be aware that I see Ward Churchill as a snake oil salesman”
Of course you do as that is what your masters have instructed you to believe. You are locked-in to the system. At your next executive accounting meeting start questioning the amount of money public and private colleges spend. Start to research where every penny goes. Then say there is a free script that could cut 90% of the cost of college and reduce pollution and traffic congestion. Make these suggestions more then a few times in a determined manner and you will be fired. If you dare mention that 9/11 could have been an inside job you will be fired in less then 4 hours.
So why exactly do you hate Ward so? You say he is a liar but you can not prove he is lying. You can only parrot what your masters want you to say so you can keep your job. What is Ward trying to sell? He is donating his time to this class. Ward does not force anyone to agree with him unlike your masters who will fire you the moment you try try and look at the big picture in a logical, cultured and reasonable manner.
You are mad because Ward sees the big picture and you and your ilk can not. The malcontents have not been able to run Ward out of town on phony charges and violent vitriol. Ward refuses to be deterred by the little Eichmann’s of the world which has them all in a tizzy.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“And WTF? Seek help, or at least for God’s sake learn how to spell “cavalry.””
Why would I do that when I have you as my personal spell checker? I knew that would get at you. Perhaps I misspelled it on purpose?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
WTF - Wow.
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but if indeed the people in the towers were really “little Eichmanns”, then why in the world would the government/Bush/etc. destroy them in an “inside job”? It seems to me that there are lots of easier ways of getting the country to go to war,Tonkin for example, without killing, what I assume you think, were allies of “the cause”. And if we can’t seem to keep ANYTHING secret in this country - from how we caught a crook to how we look for terrorists, what makes you think an operation that would need the cooperation and silence of at least hundreds of people could be pulled off without somebody spilling the beans? Not to mention the cooperation of thousands of Muslim extremists who celebrate and claim credit for the attack…
Just wondering.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Laurie
I guess I have to explain set theory to you.
The closed set of invited attendees was the union of the sets of a small number of local citizens and any CU student that wanted to attend and follow the rules set out by the meeting organizers. This is a closed set of invitees that does not include the other some 300 million other US citizens. If it were open, any of those 300 million could attend. The students have the right to invite any individual they want from off campus to attend a meeting without it becoming an open meeting. If meetings became open just because students decide to have someone else inside the room besides students, then they could not invite ANYONE to speak on campus besides fellow students. Students have the right to organize closed private events and to choose who they invite.
It was not open. It was closed. The Reporter did not belong to either of the sets of invitees, so the reporter had no right to barge into a closed meeting. He belongs in the set of 300 million people who were NOT invited to attend.
This is just like when a company puts out invitations to all of their hundreds of thousands of their global customers and holds a private event. (like one I attended recently) That is still a closed event that is not open to the public. The same if I were to invite all the CU students to my house for pizza, and I also invited a coupe of neighbors. It is still a closed private party, and if any press showed up they would have no right to barge in.
Where do you get the idea that if students invite anyone, they have to invite everyone? That is just silly!
If that were the case, everyone would have to be allowed to enter the visitor’s locker room if CU allowed any team from another college to use that locker room. (The section of regulations that covers this event also regulates sports stadiums.)
How can you justify in any part of the law anywhere that inviting some people to a private closed event automatically makes it a public event? I didn’t think so.
Yet I can find plenty of right to associate and right to assembly laws to back my side up. People have the right to assemble in private, without public intrusion, and they have he right to associate with whom they choose. What do you have that trumps this?
There is NO public right to access just because it is happening on public property. There are tons of examples of events that happen on CU property that are closed to the public — starting with classes! And the CU policy specifically allowed the event organizers to close this event to the public.
You have NOTHING to stand on.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Snapple
If you want to rely upon JGM’s third party recounting of what he says a buddy of his says that an unnamed CU “spokesrelativist” source had to say about the matter, go ahead.
If you want to believe an unnamed source that directly contradicts CU’s written policy, go ahead.
But I’m not going to buy into JGM’s bull unless I see an official public statement written on CU letterhead (or an official oral statement made by an authorized CU representative) that contradicts CU’s written policy. Until then, the written policy trumps JGM’s unnamed source that he heard about though someone he knows.
I guess this gives us some insight into how you used your sources to figure out that Ward Churchill killed John-bennnet Rammsy. Who were the sources again for that claim of yours? Did your fourth cousin once hear it from a friend of hers who’s certain it’s true because that was what everyone was saying at her mental institution?
October 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Bruce
It’s the “little Eichmann” mentality that I am ripping on. I do not speak for Ward. His comments are his. I understood the point he was trying to make. If you do not then take that up with Ward. The concept of being an “Eichmann” is not at all difficult to understand. Read the Northwoods proposal that JFK refused to implement. Follow the money trail. Over a trillion dollars has been spent on the Iraq war. Read the PNAC proposal. Read the links I posted on previous posts. Find out who pulled all bomb sniffing dogs from WTC two weeks before 9/11. I can’t open your eyes Bruce. You have to do that on your own.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Quick, Benjie! Deploy the Billy Joe Shaver Defense!
October 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
WTF, please, tell us more, as much as you want, every single detail, about 9/11 and what really happened that day. If anywhere, Benjie’s blog is the place for such truth-telling. Of course, Benjie thinks you’re an insane fool, but he won’t say anything unless you cross him because you support Ward.
Or do you agree with WTF’s WTC hallucinations as much as you do with his divorced-from-reality legal advice and support of Wart, Benjie? E-mail me, man.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
JGM, Are you going to stand behind your quotes and provide names and original sources of the quotes your good friend Snapple posted above?
Or are you going to squirm out of it?
If a CU official is going to speak for the University, there should be no problem with publishing their name. Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated load of tripe. It would be interesting to know exactly who at CU opens their mouth before actually reading the regulations.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Mr. Martin: I apologize for the ungrammatical nature of my hasty post. Please, feel free to elaborate at length on my butchering of the English language over at your place. It’ll be slightly more interesting than Weird Bird What-The-Fuck-Ever, your running commentary on insipid radio programs from fifty fucking years ago, or pictures of your cute dog. Hell, perhaps you and Laurie could even discuss it over a glass of Metamucil at your next bridge party.
And no, I wasn’t arrested this year. It had nothing to do with risk — so far the city’s batting exactly .000 when it comes to prosecuting us, and there’s no reason to think that’ll be any different this year — I had a much more mundane reason. Thanks for your concern. I’ve been similarly concerned about you. Given your absence, I was starting to wonder if one of your co-hikers had tired of your spastic, spitting, leaping little ass and dropped a rattlesnake in your sleeping bag. More’s the pity . . .
Laurie: The difference between you and Russell Means is that his life is interesting. That’s all I ask: be interesting, for Christ’s sake.
Snapple: It’s a private event. The students have stated it’s a private event, Bronson Hilliard has stated it’s a private event, no one but you is confused that it’s a private event. Tell you what, though, show up and I’ll do my best to get you in. But only if you give a five minute lecture at the beginning of class on how Ward Churchill killed JonBenet. Fair?
All: The ego and stomping boots line was a nod to Mr. Paine. (I actually thought that was one of his funnier jabs.) Don’t you fucking trolls even read your own sites?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
What students said the meeting was private?
What were their names?
Is their club recognized by the university?
Who are their officers?
Did they have an election to determine their officers?
Churchill–the guest–said it was a private event. He’s not a student or even a teacher any more.
You said the meeting was closed, but you aren’t a student either.
The original announcement I read said it was for all students and did not specify that it was closed. The rules say “such policies [about open/closedmeetings] shall be stated at the time of scheduling.”
I almost forgot to mention that Joe Trimbach’s book is going to reveal “never-before-published secrets of AIM.”
If you want to see what he has said. You could search my site.
Also check out Christopher Andrews, a Cambridge historian and Vasili Mitrokhin, a librarian.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
jgm
Your posts are so week. I have given plenty of links here as to why I believe 9/11 was an inside job. Your pea sized brain can not handle the truth. The delusion comes from you. You are considered a loser and a liar with no reasoning ability. You are not anywhere close to the intellect level of Benjamin. Your ilk is going to start losing badly in court. You can hem and haw all you want but most jurors see trough the BS. My advice to Benjimen stands.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Snapple - I love that you come on this board proclaiming the event was required to be an open meeting, AND THEN ask the questions needed to make that decision later. Decide first, then ask questions later — was this your methodology you used when determined Churchill killed Johnny-Bonneh Rahmsy?
Your good pals at PB and Drunkenblog already covered the fact that it was not open to the public back on Sept 27th/28th. I know you read that, you quoted from Drunkenblog just a few hours ago. Why are you now claiming that the meeting wasn’t announced as closed, when PB and Drunkenblog figured out (and reported) that the meeting was closed weeks ago? If you don’t comprehend how they figured it out, perhaps you should troll your way back over there and ask them to explain it to you.
You need to read my lecture on set theory I gave to Laurie above. Open to CU students is not open to the public, by definition. Unless you think that all 300 million US citizens are all enrolled at CU. CU students are members of the public, but not all members of the public are CU students. How is that so hard for you to understand?
Let me try to explain it this way. Let’s say you are playing a game of Simon Says. Simon Says to take a handful of Jelly Bellies and throw them in a bowl, then take a box full of Twinkies and throw them in the same bowl. Now if Simon Says open your mouth and eat any Jelly Belly you want, would you be following what Simon Says if you eat everything in the whole bowl including the Twinkies? No.
Similarly, this event was not open to the public just because it was open to students. All of the Jelly Bellies plus select Boulderites were invited to attend this closed event. It was not open to all the Twinkies, or to knock-off Twonkies* like yourself. The term for meetings that are not open to the public is ‘closed’.
* - special thanks to the ‘That 70’s’ show for inventing the word ‘Twonkie’…
October 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Who was supposed to pass out the meds?!?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Benjamin,
I can’t make it interesting to you. No beatings, torture or blood, no rapes of any kind. Just a few racial slurs while I was growing up.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Nixon,
Thanks for the explanation. So, it was by invitation only. Yes?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Those are rhetorical questions. I don’t really expect an answer.
I still haven’t seen where the students in the (unofficial?) club said this was a closed meeting.
Just Ben and Ward made this claim. They aren’t students. Wardo doesn’t even work at CU. He got fired for being a dishonest scholar, but he is presuming to speak for a club of students.
Can’t the students speak for themselves? Are they Wardo’s puppets? Don’t they have elected officers in the club to represent them?
The first announcement I saw did not specify that the meeting was closed. My reading of the policy is that this must be announced when the meeting is scheduled.
The comments of the CU spokesman JGM cited also suggest that his understanding was that the meeting was open.
Ward is always putting his words in other people’s mouths. He did that when he claimed that reputable scholars supported the idea that the Army gave the Mandan smallpox.
It wasn’t enough for him to say that was his (undocumented) belief); he had to falsely attribute his fabrications to other people.
Wardo and Ben should let the officers of this so-called “club” speak for themselves.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Some student representative of the club must have had to turn in some form to have this meeting. This paper would have had to specify if the meeting was closed or open.
What Wardo and Ben say is irrelevant.
They aren’t students.
I’d like to see the form the club members submitted.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Ben, the Campus Press article states:
BEGIN QUOTE
“The universi