GOP students launch Web site for complaints about liberal professors in Colorado

[Peachdiane]

[ QUOTE ]
BOULDER, Colo. - Republican students at the University of Colorado launched a Web site to gather complaints about left-leaning faculty members, saying they want to document discrimination against conservative students and indoctrination to the liberal viewpoint.

``We want concrete examples of bias in our arsenal when we go to the administration, the regents and the Legislature,'' said Brad Jones, 20, chairman of the College Republicans, who launched the Web site last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/4329543.html)

CU site (http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/CURepublicans/)

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/patriot.gif

[Gunnaheave]

I love the pop-relativism of this approach. Time was when conservatives talked about standards and professors were expected to teach objective truth. Now apparently, teachers are to ensure that their lessons meet with the expectations of their students. Heaven forbid a conservative students should have to hear something he doesn't already agree with. And let's not pretend this organization is only there to curb actual abuse. No, this is simply an attempt to intimidate the faculty.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
I love the pop-relativism of this approach. Time was when conservatives talked about standards and professors were expected to teach objective truth. Now apparently, teachers are to ensure that their lessons meet with the expectations of their students. Heaven forbid a conservative students should have to hear something he doesn't already agree with. And let's not pretend this organization is only there to curb actual abuse. No, this is simply an attempt to intimidate the faculty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you show up, and have no idea what the relevance of the discussion is.

The article states they are documenting discrimination against conservative students. Wouldn't you like to be aware if a student is being discriminated against because of his political leanings? Wouldn't such discrimination be in violation of his First Amendment protected rights? Particularly if the professor gave a conservative student a lower grade because of his politics.

Do you feel that a professor should be allowed to trample a student's rights? Would you like to do away with the whole U.S. Constitution?

[Gunnaheave]

ROFLOL, thank you for restating the obvious. What is not so obvious is why the normal mechanisms of grievance have proven inadequate, whether or not they have really been tried, or why anyone would believe that recourse o outside agencies would apply only to cases involving actual abuse. And if a student gives an answer that is wrong, he should be marked down for it. To wrap that answer in the first amendment does nothing to change the matter.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
ROFLOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I bet you really are siting at your computer going ROFLOLOLOLOLOL rather than using another stupid internet cliché. Maybe they should attach an '-ing' to LOLOLOLOLOL so all the tools who use it can just turn their lives into an LOLOLOLOLing odyssey. The kind of cammed laughter that's for que-ing morons when to express something natural (IOW, robots), entire crews with high-powered mics dedicated to harnessing the sound of sickening hyenas.

"So what are you doing today?"

"I'm LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLing"

"But, what's so funny about Brady Bunch reruns?"

"Nothing."

"But, then why are you LOLOLOLOLOLing?"

"Because, I want to feel like I belong. Don't you hear those people laughing? Coming through the loudspeakers of the Zenith? I just want to fit in, to be a part of the greater conviviality out there."

It seems Heaver(who chose a frat boy handle) is easily amused. LOL!!!

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
ROFLOL, thank you for restating the obvious. What is not so obvious is why the normal mechanisms of grievance have proven inadequate, whether or not they have really been tried, or why anyone would believe that recourse o outside agencies would apply only to cases involving actual abuse. And if a student gives an answer that is wrong, he should be marked down for it. To wrap that answer in the first amendment does nothing to change the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, perhaps because the "normal mechanisms of grievance HAVE proven inadequate".

Perhaps the students are giving answers that are RIGHT, but are not liked by the professor.

Here's one for you for example, in a history course.

Name one of the root causes of the start of the U.S. Civil War.

Now, if you're a liberal, obviously the first thing that will come to mind is "slavery", when in fact, slavery wasn't even part of Lincoln's thinking when he decided to declare war on the Southern States.

See how an answer can be right, but a professor can mark it wrong because it's not the answer he wants you to use?

As far as pointing out the obvious, I do that for clueless people a lot.

[Gunnaheave]

Your refutation of the root cuase issue is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue. And your example actually illustrates precisely the flaw in this approach. Your refusal to accept slavery as one of the root causes of the Civil War as a valid answer IS erroneous. And if you think it's actionable, then you are demonstrably pushing a false view history. Your refusal to accept the normal mechanisms of grievance then enables you to continue pushing your false views on those who have more responsible views on the subject. This is precisely the point of the website in question. You are effectively demanding that teachers conform to your politics in their classrooms. This is in fact political correctness at its worst, but I imagine you prefer to reserve that word for liberals. So, be it.

BTW: It is easy enough to say that the normal mechanisms of grievance have not worked, but you haven't shown that, and neither has the article. There is a point at which such wreckless disregard for the truth can be fairly described as lying.

[Junky]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
Your refutation of the root cuase issue is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue. And your example actually illustrates precisely the flaw in this approach. Your refusal to accept slavery as one of the root causes of the Civil War as a valid answer IS erroneous. And if you think it's actionable, then you are demonstrably pushing a false view history. Your refusal to accept the normal mechanisms of grievance then enables you to continue pushing your false views on those who have more responsible views on the subject. This is precisely the point of the website in question. You are effectively demanding that teachers conform to your politics in their classrooms. This is in fact political correctness at its worst, but I imagine you prefer to reserve that word for liberals. So, be it.

BTW: It is easy enough to say that the normal mechanisms of grievance have not worked, but you haven't shown that, and neither has the article. There is a point at which such wreckless disregard for the truth can be fairly described as lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sniff...sniff...dang it smells in here! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crapper.gif

[Gunnaheave]

We'll just file that under "Someone with Nothing to add to the Discussion."

Seems to be a common phenomenon in these parts.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
We'll just file that under "Someone with Nothing to add to the Discussion."

Seems to be a common phenomenon in these parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, his response was quite apt & to the point. Let's cut to the chase. Yer full of shit.

You just parrot the opposite of practically every post by every poster here so far in a reactionary manner *yes is no, up is down, right is left* and anyone who continues to say, "Uh, no dipshit, right is right. Not left." You either 1)Say that's a STRAW MAN. 2)Pull the "FALSE DICHOTOMY" lever(which you do nearly habitually) or 3)Press the "circular logic" button. All your responses are stock.

Thus, the smell.

Go away you silly, little insignificant shit stain, you.

[DoctorDoom]

Bets on age? I'd say no more than 21. He has that cocksure arrogance that comes of teenage omniscience that doesn't subside until the early 20s. And, he writes like a collij boie trying to impress his Poli Sci professor.

Anyone remember that pompous asshole, BobK (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=1225&page=6&what=showmem bers), who wrote 10,000-word essays on why no one but him understands logic, and why every poster who didn't feel blessed to be touched by his shadow was ten orders of magnitude lower than whale shit?

[Gunnaheave]

Two responses with no content whatsoever. It really would be nice if you would occassionally make an attempt to say something about the topic itself.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
Your refutation of the root cuase issue is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue. And your example actually illustrates precisely the flaw in this approach. Your refusal to accept slavery as one of the root causes of the Civil War as a valid answer IS erroneous. And if you think it's actionable, then you are demonstrably pushing a false view history. Your refusal to accept the normal mechanisms of grievance then enables you to continue pushing your false views on those who have more responsible views on the subject. This is precisely the point of the website in question. You are effectively demanding that teachers conform to your politics in their classrooms. This is in fact political correctness at its worst, but I imagine you prefer to reserve that word for liberals. So, be it.

BTW: It is easy enough to say that the normal mechanisms of grievance have not worked, but you haven't shown that, and neither has the article. There is a point at which such wreckless disregard for the truth can be fairly described as lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...didn't you try to call me on something along the lines of "reading into" something you wrote.

Don't you think you are reading too much into the article? You presuppose that the student haven't followed "normal" grievance procedures. Such presupposition can also be fairly described as "lying". Sometimes such presupposition can be taken as stupidity, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that you're badly mistaken and not glaringly stupid, or intentionally lying.

Slavery was a key element to the Civil War, but in FACT was not a root cause. This is not a history thread, so do try to keep up with the analogies.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Two responses with no content whatsoever. It really would be nice if you would occassionally make an attempt to say something about the topic itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
The others are doing quite well refuting your pathetic leftie "arguments". I prefer to consider you solely as a source of amusement.

[Gunnaheave]

RL: Your distinction between "key elements" and "root causes" is a distinction without a difference. And there is a very big difference bewteen addressing a specific argument and esessing the goals and consequences of a political movement. When addressing an actual argument it is standard argumentation ethics to address the position as actually stated. This does not mean we must be blind to the realities of political movements such as the one in question, much less to their consequences. As indicated, no evidence has been supplied that this tactic was necessary, nor is there any reason to believe its use is taylored to correction of actual abuse. No argument has been presented in this thread to show that those problems have been answered.

Dr.Doom: It's okay sweetheart. I know you love me.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
RL: Your distinction between "key elements" and "root causes" is a distinction without a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly.

If you are a delinquent child, and you feel you should be a delinquent because your daddy didn't tell you he loves you enough, and decide to break into my house, and I put a .45 inch diameter hole in you, the ROOT CAUSE is that you broke into my house, KEY ELEMENTS are that you are a delinquent, that you felt justified in it, and that you feel unloved by your daddy.

Key element does not have a direct relationship with the results, as a root cause DOES.

Sorry you were unable to grasp the distinction, I hope that made it clear to you.

Now, as for the other part...

You are assuming that the students are in the wrong. The students simply want an investigation into whether the professor is.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr.Doom: It's okay sweetheart. I know you love me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know this will grievously disappoint you, "sweetheart", but I prefer women. However, you can drown your sorrows in the local fruit bar and get off a couple of quickies in the men's room with some horny fellow rump ranger, and that should alleviate your anguish at discovering that I'm not into your "lifestyle".

Sorry, "sweetheart", but then life's a bitch, ain't it?

[Timberwolf]

Petulant child...you are SO far out of your league here. Go back to infidels and play with your Tonka trucks in the sandbox with your other "intellectual" and "freethinker" friends, 'K???

I do have to agree with Doc, though...you ARE mildly amusing.

btw Lobo...so far game & set...one more for match.

[Gunnaheave]

RL: Thank you for that wonderfully ad hoc explanation. And now that I know on what basis you are trying to render this distinction, it is easy enough to say that slavery was indeed a root cause by your definition. If you do not believe slavery was one of the factors which actually lead to the war, then you are sadly mistaken.

And no, I am not assuming that the students are wrong about any particular complain. I am objecting to the need for extra leverage in the absence of any demonstrated need.

So, Dr. Doom, you PREFER women do you. Interesting choice of wording. For my own part I am exclusively interested in women. But don't worry now, I am all for the rights of gays and bisexuals. If anyone gives you grief about your sexual orientation, I will be the first to defend your rights as a poofter. I do wish, however, that you would curb your enthusiasm for me dearie. It's quite embarrassing the way you just through yourself at me.

TW: Clearly has no opinion on the subject.

Edited to correct an error. Too late though. Dr. Doom picked right up on it. Good job sweetie.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
So, Dr. Doom, you PREFER women do you. Interesting choice of wording.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people with more than one functional neuron understand the meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
For my own part I am exclusively interested in men.

[/ QUOTE ]
As expected, lad.

[ QUOTE ]
But don't worry now, I am all for the rights of gays and homosexuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Understandable, but we still won't allow you to marry each other.

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone gives you grief about your sexual orientation, I will be the first to defend your rights as a poofter.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite thoughtful of you, but we heterosexuals don't need your defense. We're normal.

[ QUOTE ]
I do wish, however, that you would curb your enthusiasm for me dearie.

[/ QUOTE ]
There now, you simply cannot conceal your awe and wonder at being in the presence of my true greatness, but this childish infatuation simply has to cease. You'll just have to accept that great and wondrous people such as I do not consort with your kind, other than for the occasional need for amusement at the expense of those with igloo-room-temperature IQs.

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite embarrassing the way you just through yourself at me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't fear that, child. I would neither "through" nor throw myself at you. However, I might target you if I happen to see you in the crosswalk...... nah, scratch that...... too much paperwork.

[Gunnaheave]

Now you are going through my posts line by line, just to get my attention. Poor fellow you just hang on my every word, don't you? Don't worry honey, I'll be sure and make a few extra spelling mistakes just for you. OK sweetie?

[Rink]

between you gunnaheave and my old ex-friend jackyl I dunno who is worse with the homo attitude.

You people run around and flaunt your 'lifestyle' for all to see, and come onto men who dont want anything to do with you whatsoever, and you wonder why common decent people cant stand the likes of the homosexual movement?

We wish that you and your butt buddies would GO AWAY, and leave the rest of the human race alone.

Go back to your closet and take your butt-buddies with you.

I for one am getting damn tired of you pricks.

[Gunnaheave]

I'm not the one coming onto anyone here Rink. Your friend Dr. Doom has had a hard-on for me the whole time I have been here. I do wish you would ask him to control his impulses. Because his crush is becoming painfully obvious.

And if you cannot grasp the point here, it is this: the man follows me from thread to thread for no reason other than to launch pessonal attacks that are unrelated to the topic at hand. If he decides to act sensibly, then I will happily drop the burlesque. Until then, his schoolgirl crush will be met as above. You're views on homosexuality do not interest me, but you really shouldn't take things so seriously.

And I am tired of the many complaints about how I treat others, when I am merely responding to personal attacks myself. If you folks want respect, try showing some for a change.

[DoctorDoom]

Rink, the queers can't help themselves, don't you know? It's genetic. They were born that way. One does wish they would go back into their closets, lock the doors behind them, and stop parading their perversion down Main Street, but that's probably too much to ask. They apparently have an overpowering impulse to tell everyone what they do with their genitals.

And then they wonder why some people get pissed off enough to whup the shit out of them.

<hr>
Heave-inducer, no one cares WHAT the hell you think about ANYTHING. That should have been abundantly clear when you dropped your sorry Infidels ass into this board and immediately demonstrated that you're just another troll.

If I seem to follow you around, it's merely because your ignorance and immaturity amuse me. It's fascinating to read your specious babble and your adverse reactions to being called to task for it.

Your crap might earn you the respect of the other low-forehead types at Infidels, but we're adults here, and after a while we grow weary of children jumping up and down and shrilling, "LOOK AT ME!"

Ergo, queer, don't flatter yourself that I think of you as anything more than a bug under a magnifying glass, interesting and sometimes amusing to watch, but otherwise irrelevant. The fact that I bother with your prattle at all is evidence that I have a lot of free time, and it's too farking cold outside to do anything.

And please do stop trying to hit on me. I had to give an attitude adjustment to the last queer that tried that.

[Gunnaheave]

ROFLOL, this defense of violent crime brought to you by Dr. Doom.

[DoctorDoom]

Not crime. Just a little street-style education.

[Gunnaheave]

You can call it whatever you want, it remains a crime. And your defense of it shows the degree to which your political agenda is little other than glorified personal malice. There is no conservativism in your post, just hatred.

[DoctorDoom]

It took 55 posts to drag out the "hatred" mantra. That may be a record for liberals, "honey". Usually it crops up within the first 20 posts, typically accompanied by the mandatory Nazi references.

Plain and simple: I don't hate queers, but I have no use for them. And, if a queer decides to make advances, a response is in order. I'm not alone in this aversion, and there are some who would go to considerably greater lengths than I would to express their disgust at such a proposition.

Naturally, since there are no moral absolutes, and right and wrong are determined by the situation, I would not want to impose my morality on those who carry out such responses.

[Rink]

If there are no 'Moral absolutes' then hatred is not hatred, but an expression of ones own differing state of mind.

and if a homosexual gets an 'attitude' adjustment after he tries to make an advance on a straight and that homosexual dislikes it, well it cant be called assault, since there are no 'moral absolutes' then assault wasnt an assault, but a differing opinion most vividly expressed by the straight towards the homosexual who made the advances towards the straight.

[DoctorDoom]

Precisely! Give the lady a cee-gar (but not from the XXX-42 humidor).

[Rink]

Thank Yew Doc *Courtseys* /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Gunnaheave]

Well congrats doc. You have discovered that delibherate expressions of malice for 55 posts will eventually earn precisely the label your behavior warrants. I did my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem determined to show the worst in pseudo-conservative politics. And if you think that violence is an appropriate response to a sexual advance, then yes, you are advocating hatred. ±Last I checked a simple no was sufficient, but if you find it necessary to hurt people, then you do indeed have a problem. Play all the word games you want, but you have expressed your hatred loud and clear. It is just a shame that you see fit to slander responsible conservatives by associating your politics with that name.

Oh, and I do not recall saying anything about there being no absolutes. I for one believe in such things. And I do wish that you and the other bigots of this board did as well. But you just use the concept as a cover for your own malice, much as you do every value you claim to uphold.

[Timberwolf]

Hey there, GoudaCheese...you want respect? Fine, EARN it. Respect is not something freely given. If you want respect from the members here, quit acting like a needle dick with penis envy and start DEBATING the topics rationally.

Otherwise, go back to your circle jerk at infidels and STFU.

[Timberwolf]

By the way, petulant child, I have opinions on a vast array of subjects. I just don't waste my time on the likes of you.

When you're ready to stop mentally masturbating yourself and join a discussion, get back to me.

Oh, go ahead and make some lame reference to my sexual orientation now...it will be quite expected.

[DoctorDoom]

For the record: what one does in his bedroom, whom he does it with, and with what he does it, is of no interest to me. If the fudge-packers want to butt-hump themselves into early graves, BFD. It becomes my business when:

1. The queers decide to make public what they claim is their "right" to do in private;
2. March down Main Street proclaiming their "pride" in what they do with their genitals;
3. Insist that we all accept their perversion as a valid "alternate lifestyle";
4. Use the legislatures and the courts to enforce their outrageous demands;
5. Promote their sexual deviancy to our children in the public school classrooms;
6. Demand that we redefine marriage to include queers "marrying" each other;
7. Demand that taxpayers underwrite research into AIDS so that they can butt-hump each other without consequences;
8. Demand that taxpayers and insurance ratepayers finance the expensive treatment for AIDS when their butt-humping has it consequences.
9. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

The cultural obsession with homosexuality (which, BTW, is gross discrimination against other paraphilias) will have inevitable repercussions. The people are eventually going to become greatly annoyed at the glorification of queers. And, among those repercussions there will be direct action. If the queers don't like that, let them stop thrusting their perversion into the spotlight.

And, how dare you accuse me of hate. You liberals are fond of quoting, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt 7:1) when someone challenges what liberals say or do, but how quick you are to judge when you don't like what others say or do.

It's a liberal doctrine that there are no moral standards, no absolutes. Everything is relative. Therefore, you have no authority to question my beliefs and motivations, nor to impose your morality on me.

If my moral code allows me to kick some queer's ass, and you object, why should anyone think that you are right and I am wrong? There are no rights and no wrongs. That's what you liberals have been telling us for years.

Lastly, you liberals rabidly support the "right" to kill innocent unborn children. Ergo, if we decide to introduce some queer to his maker, consider it retroactive abortion.

[Rink]

Hey Doc, May I borrow some of your argument if not all in a differing format??

i gots me someone I need ta kick around some, and I like how you stated things here.

May I? plz?

[Rink]

As for you o Heaving-one.

I got yer message for yaz hehe

have fun listenin to this its just a simple wav file, but its a sentiment of mine towards the likes of you o so clueless ones....

Why don't you do the world a favor? Pull your lip over your head and swallow. (http://w3.gorge.net/rink/worldfavor.wav)

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
...And if you think that violence is an appropriate response to a sexual advance, then yes, you are advocating hatred. ±Last I checked a simple no was sufficient, but if you find it necessary to hurt people, then you do indeed have a problem. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

gunnaheave, he explained to you in his first post after you called him "sweetheart", that he was not interested in men, (said "no"), but you persisted in coming on to him.

Look like you might need a restraining order at least, but then the cops hardly ever enforce those, so maybe a little violence on his part is in order.

If you were on a date, and the guy you were with persisted long after you told him "no", would you just continue saying no, or would you escalate beyond a verbal "no"?

Oh, and just FTR, please illustrate where someone said "we're gonna kick the South's ass because they have slaves". Keep in mind that the Union was completely content with the Missouri Compromise at the time.

[Venus]

Lobo, Doc, we got us yet another law school student, I see. "RL: Your distinction between "key elements" and "root causes" is a distinction without a difference." That, among other law school clichés used by G'heave, are deathly boring giveaways.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif *sigh* /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Since G'heave's primary hot-buttons are queers, blacks/slavery and university dogma, I'd say this is one of Osammie's l'il buddies.

[Venus]

"Bets on age? I'd say no more than 21. He has that cocksure arrogance that comes of teenage omniscience that doesn't subside until the early 20s. And, he writes like a collij boie trying to impress his Poli Sci professor."

My guess is 24, second-year law. Check this out /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif:

"Your refutation of the root cuase issue is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue. (pre-trial statement boilerplate) And your example actually illustrates precisely the flaw in this approach. (the misspellings and sentence structure flaws coupled with high-flown legal language in these first two statements are comically amateur) Your refusal to accept slavery as one of the root causes of the Civil War as a valid answer IS erroneous. (hyperventilation triumphs over syntax, as is the wont of law students everywhere, as is the lack of supporting evidence) And if you think it's actionable (another lofty little legal term), then you are demonstrably ('nuther one) pushing a false view history.[/b] (missing the preposition "of" in this context is classic law student cool-speak) Your refusal to accept the normal mechanisms of grievance then enables you (more lawyer-like phrasing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif) to continue pushing your false views on those who have more responsible views on the subject. (yet another) This is precisely the point of the website in question. (they're suckled on these two phrases) You are effectively (contextually, this one is so de rigueur it hardly needs attention) demanding that teachers conform to your politics in their classrooms. This is in fact political correctness at its worst, but I imagine you prefer to reserve that word for liberals. So, be it. (OH, the condemnation of it all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/Crying.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif)

BTW: It is easy enough to say that the normal mechanisms of grievance have not worked, but you haven't shown that (more lawyerin'), and neither has the article. There is a point at which such wreckless disregard for the truth can be fairly described as lying. (this last one is just the piéce de résistance and the be-all, end-all statement of someone who's never met a lawyer's statement s/he didn't copy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dimbulb.gif)

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
RL: Thank you for that wonderfully ad hoc explanation. And now that I know on what basis you are trying to render this distinction, it is easy enough to say that slavery was indeed a root cause by your definition. If you do not believe slavery was one of the factors which actually lead to the war, then you are sadly mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what was stated peckerhead.

See if you can go back and follow the analogy again.

I never said slavery was not a factor. I said slavery was not a root cause. Under no circumstances, and in no way did I even IMPLY it was not a factor. As it was, I initially STATED it was a factor, but it was not a root cause.

If you will go back and read the statement about your juvenile delinquency, you will note what the difference is in the two.

A root cause leads DIRECTLY to something. A key element does not.

If slavery had been a root cause of war, it wouldn't have taken "four score and seven years" for the war to be fought after the nation was founded.

[TheRealLobo]

In an attempt to steer the thread back to it's roots:

gh, did you actually read the article, or any of the links associated with it?

A Liberal Student's viewpoint (http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040106-103353-6148r)

[ QUOTE ]

"Critical thought and debate are no longer taught. Students learn rather to keep quiet and agree with whatever message the professor is preaching," said Mr. Hamm, graduate student at CU Boulder, who spoke at a Dec. 18 state legislative hearing here. "This is not education, but indoctrination."
Stories such as Mr. Hamm's reinforce a belief by conservatives: that universities have become hotbeds of left-wing ideology hostile to opposing views and those who hold them. After years of complaining, some Colorado conservatives are trying to do something about it.
When the state General Assembly convenes tomorrow, Colorado Republicans are expected to introduce the nation's first legislation aimed at combating political bias at state institutions of higher learning. Several other states are expected to follow with similar legislation, according to David Horowitz, author of the Academic Bill of Rights, an eight-point manifesto calling for universities to hire faculty, offer tenure and evaluate students without regard to their political or religious beliefs.
In Colorado, the movement comes after an investigation by Senate President John Andrews, who last fall asked the state's 29 universities to detail their antibias policies. His probe found that all the universities have a process in place to address bias-related grievances from students, professors and job applicants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the proof is there.

More proof that they tried "normal grievance procedures" (http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/may_1998_2.html)

It really goes on and on gungajeeve, you should read the articles you comment on, perhaps you won't need to spit out so much shoe leather next time.

Now either admit you didn't read the article, admit you are being an ass, or shut up. Makes no difference to me which you choose, but the choice is yours.

Keep in mind, I know for a fact you couldn't have read the article with any comprehension, and making further posts refuting what I said here, or continuing to debate this thread is a self admission of the second kind, so your best bet is the third option.

[Gunnaheave]

TW: Been debating the topic rationally all along, and you know it. The disrespect you've shown reflects nothing but your own lack of integrity, and a decided lack of interest in discussing the issues yourself.

Dr. Doom: Mystatements were based on the absolute fact that you have just argued in favor of violence against homosexuals. Your general views on homosexuals do not interest me, and neither do you pretended rationalizations. Your mmalice is clear, and I am not obligated to humor the sophistry with which you dress up this malice as politics.

Rink: Inarticulate expressions of hatred are not impressive. Feel free to click on your own link.

RL: Your example of a date is bizarre and irrelevant, and yet another pseudo-conservative hate-monger adds himself to the list of those quick to condone violence against homosexuals. Your argument about the Civil War and slavery still rests on a wilfull misrepresentation of the case. I do not have to demonstrate that anyone in the Union decided to attack the South because of slavery in order to show that slavery was a root cause. And since you wish to play more semantics on this issue, then fine, slavery does have a direct relationship with the results. Why did you pick such vague wording anyway, especially if you are going to give me shit about "factor"? You could have stuck me with a much bigger burden by simply keeping to the notion of a causal relationship. In any event a causal relationship DOES exist here. It is not exclusive, but it does exist. To maintain otherwise is beyond the scope of credibility. The notion that a root cause leads directly to something is new, however, and no that isn't what the phrase is normally meant to entail. If you insist on changing the vocabulary as you go (as you just did) then you are merely demonstrating the arbitrary nature of your original distinction. ±Note also that the article that you provided as proof that students had followed university grievance procedures contains no remarks on such an attempt.

[Rink]

scuse me but dont put words in my mouth, I never said that "Rink: Inarticulate expressions of hatred are not impressive. Feel free to click on your own link."

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
RL: Your example of a date is bizarre and irrelevant, and yet another pseudo-conservative hate-monger adds himself to the list of those quick to condone violence against homosexuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

You of course can show where I did that. All I said was if your boyfriend kept pushing himself onto you after you said "no", that you would likely be willing to escalate beyond saying "no". Perhaps I had you all wrong, maybe you just never say "no".


[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about the Civil War and slavery still rests on a wilfull misrepresentation of the case. I do not have to demonstrate that anyone in the Union decided to attack the South because of slavery in order to show that slavery was a root cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I provided concrete examples of my terms, and how they apply. You choose to ignore the facts, and instead decide I'm being willfully misrepresentative.

[ QUOTE ]
And since you wish to play more semantics on this issue, then fine, slavery does have a direct relationship with the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ALL about semantics. We were talking about a student's paper being judged fairly or not BASED on semantics. And if slavery WAS cause enough to go to war, then why did it take 87 years for the Union to declare war?

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you pick such vague wording anyway, especially if you are going to give me shit about "factor"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Vague? I explained the terms as I went. Perhaps if you were better learned, you'd understand such terms. Particularly cause and effect.

[ QUOTE ]
You could have stuck me with a much bigger burden by simply keeping to the notion of a causal relationship. In any event a causal relationship DOES exist here. It is not exclusive, but it does exist. To maintain otherwise is beyond the scope of credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the minds of people that have never searched for answers beyond the history taught in public schools.

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that a root cause leads directly to something is new,

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

You apparently have never done any root cause analysis.

Root causes are the causal factors that, if corrected, would prevent recurrence of the same or a similar incident.

For slavery to be a root cause of the Civil War, then if there had been no slavery, the war would not have been fought.


[ QUOTE ]
however, and no that isn't what the phrase is normally meant to entail. If you insist on changing the vocabulary as you go (as you just did) then you are merely demonstrating the arbitrary nature of your original distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no, YOU are trying to blur a clear distinction between what I clearly stated in all my posts and what you THINK I said.

[ QUOTE ]

±Note also that the article that you provided as proof that students had followed university grievance procedures contains no remarks on such an attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, had you read the article, you would have found that what they are doing IS the normal grievance procedure. Perhaps that's why the state's Attorney General, and the state Legislature is looking into it. Clearly, you chose option two of the three that I gave you, and you wish to continue being an ass. That's acceptable, but know that your credibility suffers with every post.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
TW: Been debating the topic rationally all along, and you know it. The disrespect you've shown reflects nothing but your own lack of integrity, and a decided lack of interest in discussing the issues yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've just read every post you've made in this discussion. You are NOT debating rationally, you are debating emotionally...and ignoring the facts presented to you because they don't fit into your warped world view.

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Doom: Mystatements were based on the absolute fact that you have just argued in favor of violence against homosexuals. Your general views on homosexuals do not interest me, and neither do you pretended rationalizations. Your mmalice is clear, and I am not obligated to humor the sophistry with which you dress up this malice as politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see...violence is only allowed if one's paradigm fits liberal mantra. It is OK for for a queer to harass a straight guy (like what you're practicing here in regards to your "advances" on Doc), but it's not OK for a straight male to punch a queer in the face to ward of an unwelcomed advance after saying the advance is unwelcome. Can you say "double standard" and "hypocrite"?

[ QUOTE ]
Rink: Inarticulate expressions of hatred are not impressive. Feel free to click on your own link.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you may want to remove that swastika from your shirt sleeve and let your hair grow out to a length of at least an inch or so...

[ QUOTE ]
RL: Your example of a date is bizarre and irrelevant, and yet another pseudo-conservative hate-monger adds himself to the list of those quick to condone violence against homosexuals. Your argument about the Civil War and slavery still rests on a wilfull misrepresentation of the case. I do not have to demonstrate that anyone in the Union decided to attack the South because of slavery in order to show that slavery was a root cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you do. Slavery was not THE reason Lincoln went to war. If you will remember your American History properly, you will remember that there quite a few slave owners in the North, too.

[ QUOTE ]
And since you wish to play more semantics on this issue, then fine, slavery does have a direct relationship with the results. Why did you pick such vague wording anyway, especially if you are going to give me shit about "factor"? You could have stuck me with a much bigger burden by simply keeping to the notion of a causal relationship. In any event a causal relationship DOES exist here. It is not exclusive, but it does exist. To maintain otherwise is beyond the scope of credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
So then, you are beginning to realize that you have no credibility. That's good, now your education can begin.

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that a root cause leads directly to something is new, however, and no that isn't what the phrase is normally meant to entail. If you insist on changing the vocabulary as you go (as you just did) then you are merely demonstrating the arbitrary nature of your original distinction. ±Note also that the article that you provided as proof that students had followed university grievance procedures contains no remarks on such an attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does the article contain any reference that the attempt was NOT made? Lawyer-boy, you're gonna have to leave the halls of Academia before you'll receive any life experiences that will help you get THROUGH life. Leeching off the rest of us isn't gonna cut it. Your lame attmept to revise history is just that...lame.

[Gunnaheave]

Rink: Bizarre.

RL: If a date continually presses for sex when it isn't desired, you call off the date and sever relations with that person. You don't continue the date and slug her/him. If you are not of a date and/or leaving and a person persists beyond in physical advances 'no,' then it's sexual assault and yo are justified in using as much violence as is necessary to stop the assault. But if you think simply asking once is sufficient warrant for violence, as indicated above, then you are making excuses. Your scenario is a fantasy.

You changed the definition of root cause about 3 times here, and if you can't tell the difference between your various explanations, then so be it. The notion that a root cause must lead DIRECTLY to its effect would entail that only one cause was necessary, which would pretty well eliminate any muticausal analyses. Most scholars trying to explain the civil war would suggest a number of root causes, a practice which that particular wording would rule out. In any event, your ad hoc definitions are uninteresting, and you are clearly unable to grasp the implications of your own words. I'm done chasing your whim around this subject.

Note also that your new take on the article is a very interesting word game, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't show what you said it did.

TW:

Point # 1 is a conclusionary statement with no supporting evidence. It is also a good case study in irony.

Point # 2: Never said sexual harrassment was generally acceptable, but if you wish to whine about my response to Dr. Doom, then perhaps you should look at his behavior a little more carefully. You condone his personal attacks and criticize my response. You are a hypocrit. And once again, if you actually think a punch in the face is a reasonable response to a sexual advance, then you are advocating criminal behavior. I wonder, btw, if you think that's what women should do any time you make an advance they don't like.

Point # 3: The physh.

Point # 4: No I don't. And your argument continues the same dodge used by your fellow revisionist. Kick away at the straw yankee all you want. It only demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with the case you claim to oppose.

Point # 5: I really hope you are enjoying these pointless insults. I am.

Point # 6: Perhaps you could prove that you do not snowball RL every Sunday. Until then I will assume that you do. ±In fact I will regard every post in which you do not present evidence to the contrary as evidence that you do. I hope you both get AIDS tests, because that really is rather risky behavior.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Gunnaheave said:
TW:

Point # 1 is a conclusionary statement with no supporting evidence. It is also a good case study in irony.

[/ QUOTE ]
Point #1 is reality. You've not really said anything logical from the beginning of this thread. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Point # 2: Never said sexual harrassment was generally acceptable, but if you wish to whine about my response to Dr. Doom, then perhaps you should look at his behavior a little more carefully. You condone his personal attacks and criticize my response. You are a hypocrit. And once again, if you actually think a punch in the face is a reasonable response to a sexual advance, then you are advocating criminal behavior. I wonder, btw, if you think that's what women should do any time you make an advance they don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doc's dealings with you are the result of your own cluelessness and psychobabble. We generally refer to such a person as a blatherskite. btw - is your alter ego Darkwing Duck??

[ QUOTE ]
Point # 3: The physh.

[/ QUOTE ]
The crawdad.../ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Point # 4: No I don't. And your argument continues the same dodge used by your fellow revisionist. Kick away at the straw yankee all you want. It only demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with the case you claim to oppose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like you should talk...this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[ QUOTE ]
Point # 5: I really hope you are enjoying these pointless insults. I am.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you are boring me to death with your lame attempts at humor. I'm only posting for the benefit of those that lurk...I'm hoping that you continue to post your prattling drivel in the hopes that the lurkers will find you mildly amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
Point # 6: Perhaps you could prove that you do not snowball RL every Sunday. Until then I will assume that you do. ±In fact I will regard every post in which you do not present evidence to the contrary as evidence that you do. I hope you both get AIDS tests, because that really is rather risky behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
No skin off my nose...but I will hold you to the same standard concerning your live-in sheep and goats. Until you provide evidence that you're not shagging your sheep every other day, I'll take that as proof that you're a b-a-a-a-a-a-d boy and like it "wooly".

As for the AIDS test, don't need one. I would imagine that you should be checked for syphillis though...the insanity that you're exhibiting in your posts is one of the classic symptoms of the disease.

You aren't really very good at this, are you petulant child?? Hell, I've been insulted better by dead people.

[TheRealLobo]

[/ QUOTE ]
RL: If a date continually presses for sex when it isn't desired, you call off the date and sever relations with that person. You don't continue the date and slug her/him. If you are not of a date and/or leaving and a person persists beyond in physical advances 'no,' then it's sexual assault and yo are justified in using as much violence as is necessary to stop the assault. But if you think simply asking once is sufficient warrant for violence, as indicated above, then you are making excuses. Your scenario is a fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stated what Doc Doom stated above. Having problems following the thread?

[ QUOTE ]
You changed the definition of root cause about 3 times here,

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Can you show me where?

[ QUOTE ]
and if you can't tell the difference between your various explanations, then so be it. The notion that a root cause must lead DIRECTLY to its effect would entail that only one cause was necessary, which would pretty well eliminate any muticausal analyses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry you don't grasp it. Are you implying that a tree only has one root? Pay attention now, a root cause is one that if eliminated the result would not occur. This does in NO way state that there cannot be more than one root cause. A root cause of the civil war was the southern states seceding. Had they not, then there would not have been a war. Going even further, had Lincoln not been president, then there would not have been a war. Granted, slavery was an issue, but if slavery had not been practised in the U.S., the war would still have occurred.

[ QUOTE ]
Most scholars trying to explain the civil war would suggest a number of root causes, a practice which that particular wording would rule out. In any event, your ad hoc definitions are uninteresting,

[/ QUOTE ]

My definitions are well known in the engineering world. If you find them uninteresting, perhaps you're in need of more life experiences. get back to me when you're in your 20's or so.

[ QUOTE ]
and you are clearly unable to grasp the implications of your own words. I'm done chasing your whim around this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snorf! One who cannot grasp what I'm saying implying that it is because I don't understand what I'm saying. You really are an ass.

[ QUOTE ]
Note also that your new take on the article is a very interesting word game, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't show what you said it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say it said? Answer this one. I used qualifiers like "perhaps" and "maybe" throughout. You are the peckerhead that made unqualified absolute statements about it. You're not very good at this, are you?

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not very good at this, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, he isn't.

[Rink]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink: Bizarre.

RL: If a date continually presses for sex when it isn't desired, you call off the date and sever relations with that person. You don't continue the date and slug her/him. If you are not of a date and/or leaving and a person persists beyond in physical advances 'no,' then it's sexual assault and yo are justified in using as much violence as is necessary to stop the assault. But if you think simply asking once is sufficient warrant for violence, as indicated above, then you are making excuses. Your scenario is a fantasy.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone persistently pressed me for sex, I'd bust his lip but good, I'd knee im in the groin and remove his sexual ardor Real fast!

I wouldnt put up with it and would put the dude right in his place fast.

cutting off, or severing relations by THAT time would be too little too late, time to knock im in the nose fast.

I dont put up with sexual harrassment, and i wouldnt even let it get to the point of sexual assault.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
[ QUOTE ]
Rink: Bizarre.

RL: If a date continually presses for sex when it isn't desired, you call off the date and sever relations with that person. You don't continue the date and slug her/him. If you are not of a date and/or leaving and a person persists beyond in physical advances 'no,' then it's sexual assault and yo are justified in using as much violence as is necessary to stop the assault. But if you think simply asking once is sufficient warrant for violence, as indicated above, then you are making excuses. Your scenario is a fantasy.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone persistently pressed me for sex, I'd bust his lip but good, I'd knee im in the groin and remove his sexual ardor Real fast!

I wouldnt put up with it and would put the dude right in his place fast.

cutting off, or severing relations by THAT time would be too little too late, time to knock im in the nose fast.

I dont put up with sexual harrassment, and i wouldnt even let it get to the point of sexual assault.


[/ QUOTE ]

My wife does as much to me every night after my usual round of advancements.

[Rink]

awww poor wyatt!!

[TheRealLobo]

Y'all know what?

I think he typed "Root Cause Analysis" in Google, found the definition is exactly what I said it was, then read the article above, realized he had been more stupid in this thread than most he replies in, and slunk away.

[Timberwolf]

Probably realized that he had "removed all doubt". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif