CNews 27June06

My guess is most of those profs were canned for criminal behavior, including sexual indiscretions, not for the stuff CU got Ward on.

  — John Ruberry () - 27 June '06 - 18:23

DELETED

  — Snapple - 27 June '06 - 19:48

The good Professor's response is up. Remember, Try-Works, with a hyphen.

  — John Moredock () - 27 June '06 - 20:57

Last time I checked, John Moredock wasn't the interim Chancellor of CU.

Is this what he is sending to CU, or is this what he is posting on Try-Works?

  — Snapple - 27 June '06 - 21:23

One of the fired professors is of course Michael Bellesiles who was canned out of his position when he was caught making up stuff in his book "Arming America".

  — SPQR () - 27 June '06 - 21:45

The misreporting of who Churchill applied the "little Eichmanns" comment to reminds me of another little sin many Chutch stories have committed: saying that Churchill compared the 9/11 victims to "a nazi." That's just too much shorthand.

  — jgm () (URL) - 27 June '06 - 22:54

Oh, and "resign in protest?" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah (choking breath) ahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

  — jgm () (URL) - 27 June '06 - 22:57

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Paine, not even giving us credit? Why it's almost like you're becoming exactly what you deplore.



How is your feud with WorldNetDaily coming along, by the way?

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 05:36

Hey Ward -- good luck in court, you clown.



That suit is a dead letter even before it is filed.

  — Federal Dog - 28 June '06 - 05:47

I noticed that in PB's copy of Churchill's response, all of the possessives are missing their apostrophe: Interim Chancellor DiStefanos "news flash", the interim chancellors blatant conflicts of interest, The interim vice chancellors strikingly duplicitous comportment...



Yet on tryworks they are correct. Did someone with apostrophe deficiency syndrome take the trouble to type out the whole thing here? Or did the cut/paste eliminate apostrophes?



A concerned typist,

Jane Ivey

  — Jane () - 28 June '06 - 05:50

I am going to wait and see if this document has been received by CU directly from Churchill or his lawyer.



Any document that purports to be from Churchill and CO-AIM must have an ironclad chain of custody.



I don't think what pops up on Try-Works, AP, or PB counts. CU must get this document directly from Churchill or his attorney and confirm its contents.



Moredock is gloating in a post over at Drunkablog that AP got their documentation from PB. And PB got it from Try-Works.



This is about as reliable as a tape recording that Boulder shock jock Jann Scott claims he has.

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 06:29

Jane--



Maybe it's bad typing, but maybe the document was marked with these errors to trace it. I don't know why this happened because I am not that slick, but wait for CU to say what they have.



This might be fun and games. I have seen fake evidence make the rounds in Boulder before.

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 06:44

Hey what gives? The Rocky did not credit Try-Works for breaking the story either. Oh, right. The rules don't apply to those with degrees in white male studies. They only apply them to others. Typical American exceptionalism. Just like Churchill said. PB and the Rocky, making Ward's case for him again and again.

  — Dave (URL) - 28 June '06 - 07:41

Still nothing from GLO. GLO where are you? We need your incredible insight...please GLO. Help us out here...give us break, man! Or are you writing now as Jane Ivey???



ep

  — Edna Pickett () - 28 June '06 - 07:52

Why not link to the Rocky Mountain News copy? That's probably where Try-Works got it.



LSG

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 28 June '06 - 08:28

Thank you, Mr. Paine!



My comments are intended in a helpful spirit, not to make fun of YOU. You must go to the horse's mouth on everything or clearly identify your source when dealing with CO-AIM operators. Remember that. It's your lifeline. Don't assume ANYTHING. Check every fact and assertion.The lies will just be slithering all over everything.



Plus, if you start quoting people who post on Try-Works, who knows where it might end...

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 08:30

Work on your reading skills, Ms. Grimes. We had the statement up well before the Rocky. As usual, when anything about Churchill breaks, they and the Post sit on our site pumping the refresh button, then poach our posts without attribution. We'd be offended, were it not for the fact that they do it to Paine and everyone else. It's what passes for journalism hereabouts.

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 08:41

John Moredock,

Then why did The Rocky Mountain News take out all of the apostrophes?

  — Mizz Grimes - 28 June '06 - 08:54

Because they're illiterates. Because they're idiots. Because they've been huffing the white-out. Because they had to transfer it to a platform that necessitated they retype it. Who cares?



The facts are the facts. Paine will verify we had it up first. They local media has done the same thing with Churchill's last two statements. Hell, the Denver Post still links to the Word .doc file on our website of Churchill's refutation of the Standing Committee's findings. They just don't bother telling anywhen what that host website happens to be. The Rocky was even more pathetic, they just copied and pasted the text out of it.



Not that we care. We scoop them, then we mock them. This way we get to point 'em out twice for the cowtown hacks they are.

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 09:07

Dear Mr. Moredock,



You need to calm down and clean up your language. Such ranting denigrates your argument and even results in annoying typos: anywhen?



Now, I am unaware of your special arrangement with Churchill; could you explain what it is and why you got the Churchill response first?



Thank you.

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 28 June '06 - 09:31

Here is where CU posts official comment about Churchill.

So far, I haven't seen them comment here.



http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/



Interesting that Moredock claims that the MSM is reading Try-Works.

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 11:23

That's not much of a coup, Snapple. As we've been pointing out for a long time, a good portion of their so-called journalism - particularly as regards Churchill - consists of trolling blogs and ripping off what they find. (As I recall, Paine was even appointed their genealogical expert a while back.) That's been one of the main reasons we started getting after them in the first place. They're sloppy as hell, and they run any idiot rumor they can find on the internet, no matter how ridiculous the source.



See Ernesto Vigil, the Bellecourt brothers (and affiliates) and Bill Bradford, for examples.



The only reason no one reads your blog, Snapple, is because you're a dribbling lunatic.

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 12:02

Mr. Moredock,

So how is it you were able to be the first to get Churchill's response?



LSG

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 28 June '06 - 12:40

Assuming that the apocryphal document can be authenticated by CU, it appears that Churchill is going to let the next committee study the evidence. After that, the REGENTS decide his fate.



If Churchill doesn't cooperate with this next committee, then President Brown gets to decide.



It seems to me that unless Churchill cooperates with the entire process, a Federal court would probably not deign look at his case.



Moredock writes that Mr. Paine's crew "run any idiot rumor they can find on the internet, no matter how ridiculous the source."



Don't bet the farm on it, Moredock.



Did you catch the O'Reilly interview on FOX last night. I watch so you don't have to.

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 12:42

I doubt that Moredock will answer me, so does anyone else know how he managed to get Churchill's response even before the Rocky Mountain News did? That is, if he really did. We have only his word for it.

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 28 June '06 - 13:10

I'm not answering you, dear, because it's none of your business how we get our information. I would've thought that was rather obvious.

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 13:52

Moredock is Churchill's alter ego. I don't see much glory in getting this document first. Churchill's response makes only vague noises about "evidence" that he claims to be holding that will cast doubt on the integrity of his investigators. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to come up with the details. We're still waiting on that video that proves he's really in the Keetowah tribe.

  — Noj - 28 June '06 - 13:52

Dear Mr. Moredock,

You say it should be obvious, but I don't see why you have to keep it a secret. I still think you got it from a legitimate news source and cleaned up the missing apostrophes to protect Churchillian deficiencies.



I think you got it from the Rocky Mountain News, because they have been the best at capturing news in this whole Churchill debacle.



Anyway, thanks for calling me "dear."

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 28 June '06 - 14:29

Then you still aren't reading very carefully, are you? This one's a no-brainer. As Paine himself says in his post directly above, our piece was up before the Rocky's. Do try to concentrate a little harder on deciphering those squiggly black marks that appear on your screen.



Dear.

  — John Moredock () - 28 June '06 - 14:55

"I’m not answering you, dear, because it’s none of your business how we get our information. I would’ve thought that was rather obvious."



Absolutely, Moredock! If Churchill gave you an exclusive, you don't need to admit the relationship with Ward. If Churchill's defense is a "slam dunk", he didn't need to share that defense with the committees. One needn't footnote a source properly either. It's nobody's business how Churchill knew these "facts". You see dumb people. They should be more careful because "the Ward giveth and the Ward taketh away". They question the "good Professor". Well, I'm convinced. Arrogance and offensiveness always does it for me.

  — Laurie - 28 June '06 - 17:10

I still don't see any confirmation from CU that Churchill has sent them a letter agreeing to cooperate with the next phase of the investigation.



That's really all that counts.



Even if Churchill wrote this statement, he may not have sent it to CU. It is not clear that this is even his official response to his termination. I think he has until next Wednesday.



I wonder if David Lane gets paid by CU to help Churchill negotiate the next phase of the investigation.

  — Snapple - 28 June '06 - 17:48

Lane gets paid 20K by CU if Churchill requests the formal hearing. You can bet that will happen. I expect Churchill will draw the process out as long as possible, to keep the paychecks coming in to the max. He doesn't have to work for them anymore, now that he's been relieved of his duties.

  — Noj - 28 June '06 - 18:07

DELETED

  — Wicked Witch () - 28 June '06 - 19:49

WW, nobody cares. I don't think Moredock is Churchill. Churchill is much smarter and articulate than the little rebel, Johnny.

  — Laurie - 28 June '06 - 20:43

Ward Churchill continues with the double or nothing strategy. I can't see how he's going to convince some new group of people to overturn what's been decided.



In any judicial appeal, and I realize this is just a university one, the facts are determined by the court that hears the case. The appellate court will only overturn its decision if the trial court misapplied the law, or was "clearly erroneous" or some such. The appellate court won't weigh the evidence or second guess those kinds of decisions. So if Churchill appealed it would seem to have no chance of success, and only be designed to perpetuate the news scandal.



Same with the civil case he keeps threatening. No chance of success. I researched the 10th Circuit law and briefed it and won't repeat it again. No chance at all of success. However, Churchill may very well go ahead with the lawsuit because he seems to see some advantage in having his name in the news all the time.



But because the publicity is about 99% negative, one has to wonder what he is trying to do. He must be appealing to a very disenfranchised, and to some degree uninformed audience if his strategy is to continue down an impossible path, with every defeat further proof of the injustice against Native Americans, or whatever. He cannot win his case against the University because of the US Supreme Court decision in Pickering v Board of Education.



Maybe he thinks that even extremely negative publicity, on a national scale, will empower him to speak to a national audience at some point in the future. In exchange for this, he's trading any shred of credibility he ever might have had.

  — Paul Wolf () (URL) - 28 June '06 - 21:15

Out of curiosity, I went to T-works to see what the site was like. Lots of foul language, some of it pretty creative. lol



But the most interesting item was the amount of comment traffic. It seems that Moredock and Wicked Witch are the ONLY people who post comments. In some cases, Moredock posts first which I found hilarious.



The final analysis, it seems no one is reading Txxxx...

  — Cattledog - 28 June '06 - 21:48

Churchill writes:



"(One of the panelists even takes credit for authoring a work unquestionably written by another scholar.)"



I wonder if he's referring to Robert Clinton, et al--American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System

  — Linda Sue Grimes () - 29 June '06 - 07:36

DELETED

  — Snapple - 29 June '06 - 09:14

My hypothesis is that Churchill suffers from pseudologia fantastica. Everything he does is to advance a false persona, as a fake Indian, fake scholar, fake war veteran, fake ex-terrorist, etc. Not to mention fake blogger.



Now he is transitioning into a new persona, that of First Amendment martyr. It's his only hope for continuing to receive the attention he craves. He will push it as far as he can. The personal tragedy for Churchill is that if he had copped to what he did and expressed contrition, I think he had a reasonable shot at keeping his job at CU. Hell, if he had even just apologized for his 9/11 comments, most of his misconduct probably would have gone unnoticed. But he is congenitally unable to concede an inch. He's thrown away his career and his life's work on Indian issue, which hardly anyone will ever cite again from here on out.

  — Noj - 29 June '06 - 14:39

DELETED

  — Snapple - 29 June '06 - 16:15

No trackbacks:

Trackback link: