On Jul 25, 2006, at 7:52 AM, frank theriault wrote: > This guy in Wisconson may (or may not be) a nutbar, but I defend his > right to lecture whatever he wants. Moreso, I defend his university's > right to pay him and have him lecture there. The fact that tax > dollars go to that university does not give the taxpayers or the > legislature the right to demand that the guy gets sacked. At most, it > gives them the right to pull those tax dollars out of the place, but > then 90% or more of the students will be harmed due to (what's > portrayed as) the rantings of this loonie.
I live in a college town. We have more nutjobs per capita than most towns because of that, many of them sporting PhDs. Until very recently the man they had teaching photography was stuck in the 1950s, and much of what he taught was totally useless in today's world. One of my neighbors is a PhD professor, and a total nutcase. We have had periodic outbursts of public outrage when someone finds out what this or that professor is teaching. It's par for the course at any university. ( In line with another discussion: One of the art professors uses some of his female students as models and does gigantic oil paintings in photo realistic style of their genitals. His paintings are shown in art museums around the area. I guess it's OK that some of his models are under 18 since he is producing "art".) > > The other thing, of course, is that perhaps, just perhaps, if someone > actually sat in on this guy's course and read the materials, he might > have a few accurate things to say, and he might have evidence to back > up his assertions. Stranger things have happened. It's hard to judge > based on a newspaper article - and a biased one, at that. Agreed. Just as if you take the time to do some real research and listening to what some of the people are saying who claim the moon landings were fake. Personally, I don't doubt for a minute that men actually landed on the moon, walked around, drove around, hit golf balls, etc. But at the same time I do think some of the moon photographs are fakes. My personal take on this is that NASA did make a bunch of "moon landing" photos in a studio, possibly for pre- launch publicity or other purposes, and that some of them were released along with the real stuff. By accident? Because the fakes looked better than the real ones? Because someone screwed up and ruined some of the film? I don't know why. If I was still teaching, I'd love to do a lecture on this. > > I've got to admit, I always wondered how it is that the Pentagon isn't > one of the best defended buildings in the world, with all the latest > detection devices and radar and defences. I've always thought it a > bit strange that something as complex and difficult to pilot as a > modern airliner, flown by a rank amateur, managed to get through those > defences and score a direct hit. I'm not saying this guy's right, but > it makes one wonder. I think that nobody ever thought the Pentagon would be attacked that way, and thus they were completely unprepared. Arrogance can explain a lot. I don't doubt the "official" story of what happened on 9/11 , but am not so closed minded that I would not listen to someone with an opposing point of view. Diversity of opinion is one of the things that used to make this country so great, but it is becoming an endangered species. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
