Re: Is Bob Only Exaggerating?
Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com)
Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:06:44 -0500
In article <32EE218B.3A99@conterra.com>, bwhit@conterra.com wrote:
>smaceach@polar.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>>
>> <frank@clark.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > It is the last decade I really do want to find out about. The voices of
>> > the educational establishment in Rushton's support were not very loud.
>>
>> They don't like him. They think he does bad science. But the CAUT was in
>> on it, IIRC, and there was a significant number of letters in support of
>> his tenure.
>
> Academic freedom is for those you like. That's called Political
>Correctness.
Bobby clearly wasn't paying attention to what Scott MacEachern said.
Rushton's tenure was defended by those who _disliked_ him and who
_disagreed_ with his views and his conclusions.
Tell us something, Bobby... Is there any viewpoint you disagree with that
does _not_ merit the label of "Political Correctness"? It seems to have
lost any real meaning, at least in the way you use it. Does it mean
anything in your "arguments" (I hesitate to dignify them thus, but no
other word comes to mind), besides "I don't like it"?
> It's a funny thing: 1) anybody who disagrees with PC is always just
>doing bad scientific work and 2) everything you happen to want to be
>true is good science.
> Your credibility is zero.
It's a funny thing: 1) Anybody who disagrees with Bobby is always just
being PC and 2) everything Bobby happens to want to be false is either
"PC" or "anti-white".
Bobby's credibility is zero.
JGB
=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_brown@pol.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
|