You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Protein Wisdom update...
2006-07-09
Jeff's site is still off line as of this post. Baldilocks has some words about Deborah Frisch and her mental hinges. Having had our own problems with DoS and with the occasional troll, I extend my sympathies.

If there's anything we can do to help here, and somebody's in email contact with Jeff, have him get ahold of me.

Blackfive has the woman's disgusting comments. I won't bother posting them here. I agree with Rightwing Nuthouse:
This is not hate speech. Nor is it name calling. Nor is it, as the good professor has tried to minimize on her blog “over the line of nastiness.” The only line it is over is perhaps a legal line that should, if there is a prosecutor on the ball in Tempe, Arizona, result in Frisch being frog marched to either the nearest detention center or wrapped in a straitjacket and thrown into a rubber room at the local insane asylum.
Posted by:Fred

#135  What did I tell you guys? Just like a 'rhoid.

Move along, nothing to see here. Let's not waste any more of Fred's bandwidth.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 23:10  

#134  The children in the Madrassas are being indoctrinated into the Death Cult that is Islam.

So? I take it in your world children are not off limits. Don't you see the sickness in that? Is half of America really like that? So it's true what they say about you?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 23:02  

#133  "heavy duty hi-test kind in the Mat-Su valley"

Klondike Gold?

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-09 23:01  

#132  What a thread. Among reasonable people I will reason, but a tyrant or a Jihadi I give no quarter. Yes, Steve, we have grass up here in Alaska. We have the lawn kind and we have the heavy duty hi-test kind in the Mat-Su valley.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-07-09 22:43  

#131  You're like a fly, you eat sh!t and bother people.

Manolo, he's more like a hemmorhoid. He's inflamed, and keeps coming back to irritate.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 22:42  

#130  I think tw's and Manolo's comments are not hypocritical at all. What's hypocritical about wanting to destroy people who want to destroy you? what did Jeff say about Deborah Frisch? Nothing. She wishes for the violent death of an innocent child. The child of someone who has wished her no harm. His child is not being taught to hate people like Deborah Frisch. The children in the Madrassas are being indoctrinated into the Death Cult that is Islam. You see no difference. Pity you.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-07-09 22:38  

#129  
"The other hipocrisy is that you spend all this energy attacking me, and not one word to condemn Manolo's statements."

I'm sure most of the good souls here do not agree with my scorched Earth...Kill them all and let God sort it out mentality. But they understand how I came to adopt that mentality, and that it took a LONG time and lots of atrocities on the part of Islam.

Now, smoke a doob, have a drink or take your meds, but go away. You're like a fly, you eat sh!t and bother people.

-M
Posted by: Manolo   2006-07-09 22:35  

#128  good luck, Jackal :-)
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 22:25  

#127  ignore the troll - it's advanced its' argument not one foot since the beginning of the thread. It doesn't care what you say and it certainly won't change its' morality or (lack of) thought patterns.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 22:21  

#126  Jackal,

Hey guy hang in there we absolutely need you for the canine contingent here at RB!

woof!!

formally Red Dog
Posted by: RD   2006-07-09 22:20  

#125  What's the hypocracy anyone here has espoused?

The hypocrisy here is that you get all riled up about a woman attacking someone's child, but are unfazed when Manolo calls for the killing of children in madrassahs. The other hipocrisy is that you spend all this energy attacking me, and not one word to condemn Manolo's statements.

It's also utmost hypocritical for trailing wife to reveal her family's history concerning real (!) genocide, and at the same time nonchalantly dismiss Manolo's statements.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 22:18  

#124  Jackal, hope you are feeling better. (Had no idea you were sick. They do some great work there in Tucson, wishing you all the best! Get well soon!)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 22:12  

#123  I was going in to radiology at the UofA Wednesday, but maybe I'll tell them there's a bigger cancer that needs eradicating. I could see if the trollop held office hours. I'd be pretty fearsome shuffling along in My walker.
Posted by: Jackal   2006-07-09 22:01  

#122  Wow

I haven't seen a thread this long since since Hillary stated donning her Darth Vader cape.
Posted by: badanov   2006-07-09 21:55  

#121  "Got any evidence, or are you just pulling that outta your ass?"

Yep, looks like he pulled it out of the same place he pulled his imitation "morality."

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-09 21:54  

#120  Just as I suspected....pulling it outta your ass. No proof whatsoever.

Either that or you're trying to flirt with me. ;)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 21:53  

#119  
"Are you seriously this stupid?"

You certainly are! Where do you get off preaching your confused morals to those of us here?

So, I'm depraved, so be it. Tell me, am I any more, or less depraved than the followers of Islam that flew jet planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people?

I can tell you this, the followers of Islam do not burden themselves with worries about morality and depravity as they plot our personal destruction and that of our society. We already know that schools full of children are fair game to them! Think Beslan!

I for one have no compassion or mercy for the Mohammedans. Now go away, there isn't anyone here that you can persuade to your way of thinking!

-M
Posted by: Manolo   2006-07-09 21:51  

#118  You keep bringing up the wor hypocritical. What's the hypocracy anyone here has espoused? You seem to be saying it's hypocritical to call for the extermination of a segment of humanity that calls for the extermination of another segment of humanity as being hypocritical in context of one person wishing death on the son of a another person who wishes no harm on that first person. I have read Jeff's blog and there is nothing in there that wishes harm to Deborah Frisch. Are you claiming "moral equivalence"? That's a bullshit phrase. You still fail to address the issues. Name calling is the last refuge of someone who has nothing to contribute.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-07-09 21:50  

#117  Care to elaborate on how what we say here can possibly endanger our soldiers?

Are you seriously this stupid?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 21:38  

#116  That's an interesting argument, N.A.H. Care to elaborate on how what we say here can possibly endanger our soldiers?

Funny, but I don't recall any statements from Osama, Zarqawi, et al stating that what they saw on a blog, any blog, was enough to make them kill more Americans and coalition soldiers. The only one making that argument, ever, is....you.

Got any evidence, or are you just pulling that outta your ass? (Don't go Ward Churchill on us and make up crap. Give some real, honest, independent evidence. Hell, for the sake of this discussion, al-Jazeera or Ananova would do.)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 21:35  

#115  But what has any of that got to do with Deborah Frisch?

Nothing, in that context. Except maybe that rightwingers are as hypocritical as the leftist moonbats. Same shit, different pile.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 21:28  

#114  So, you know Muslims that go drinking every weekend? Then they aren't "True Muslims". Alcohol is forbidden in the Koran. I don't doubt for a second that if these people were in Iran or Saudi Arabia they would be "good little Muslims". I do know Muslims here who do not think of themselves as Americans first, but Muslims first. Their Death Cult has told them, and they believe, THEY are above any law but Sharia. But what has any of that got to do with Deborah Frisch? Not a goddamn thing. Buzz off.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-07-09 21:10  

#113  And neither do you to counter Frisch's statements. Not one word, one sentence, anything at all.

Actually I did. I stated earlier that what she did amounted to an attack on a child. Given my stance on the genocide topic, including the murder of children, I think you can connect the dots yourself. Okay so I wasn't explicit about it. She is as much depraved as Manolo is. Is that good enough for you?

Any current or retired military people here have an opinion on what he said?

You can't be serious....good God. I'm sure they all think bad things about me. I'm sure they will all say they don't need my help. How does that change the fact that whatever you say here has consequences for them over there? Pathetic, on your part.

The results are very ugly as we are threatened existentially be these people. We RBers have learned this.

What people? You feel threatened by all Muslims everywhere? Including the ones that go drinking every weekend?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 21:04  

#112  Think about all of the major religions and their founder/greatest figures.

Tell me, if you can, to which the following applies:
Used scripture to justify murder,
Used scripture to justify rape,
Used scripture to justify robbery,
Used scripture to justify genocide,
Used scripture to justify being 'rulers',
Engaged in child rape,
Engaged in slavery,
Commanded the faithful to convert others by call or sword,
Allowed women to be less worth than a camel,
And the list goes on and on.

Buddha? Nope.
Confucius? Wrong again.
Moses? Sorry.
Jesus? Is this a tough call?

Or, could it be mohammed? Yup, good call. This guy is the only person who fits the list.

And that is just the beginning of my "issues" with islam. And I am not the only one. Here is what Winston Churchill wrote in 1899:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

(http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read_churchill_islam.html)

Hear, hear, Winston!
Posted by: Brett   2006-07-09 20:51  

#111  NAH, you are ignorant, i.e. uninformed.

I would suggest you go read about the "religion" known as islam. Read the koran, learn the sunnah and hadith.
Read about the life and actions of their "prophet".
Read about their desire to kill 4 million Americans.
Read about prior jihadi attacks, way back to 1979.
Read how these modern jihadis are using the basic tenets of islam to justify their bloody cause.
Read about Dhimmutude, and reflect that it means you personally.

The folks here have done their homework on this. The results are very ugly as we are threatened existentially be these people. We RBers have learned this. Will you?
Posted by: Brett   2006-07-09 20:32  

#110  One word, one sentence, or something. Anything. To counter Manolo's depraved statements. But you don't have it in you.

And neither do you to counter Frisch's statements. Not one word, one sentence, anything at all. Your contortions to defend the indefensible would do a Cirque du Soleil acrobat proud.

Wanna see a hypocrite, N.A.H.? Go get a mirror....
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 20:30  

#109  Since you claim to be protecting our troops...

Any current or retired military people here have an opinion on what he said? Manolo already voiced his opinion, so that's one retired military man on record.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-09 20:29  

#108  There is no such thing as "Moral Equivalence" or "Moral Relativity" or "Ultimate Moral Authority". How does one deal with an Enemy who seems to have no morals? What ARE "morals". Morals are that which guide people's actions. What is moral to one is im-moral to another. You say Manolo's statements are "Depraved". I fear this depravity may become necessary. That doesn't mean I believe it is "moral" as I understand the term. In a hell of a lot of Muslim communities killing anyone who doesn't ascribe to their particular interpretation of the Quran is moral. This woman went beyond the bounds of what is considered moral in most of the US. She also went beyond what is legal.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-07-09 20:29  

#107  So we've gone beyond mere sophistry to ad hominem attacks from Mr N.A.H, followed by an "I care about the troops more than you do" statement with absolutely no proof to back it up.

Damn, that wouldn't even work in a high school debate class.....
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 20:27  

#106  You do not deserve to have your freedoms protected by the men and women of our and other nation's armed forces.

Actually, I'm trying to help them out by not engaging in rhetoric that could have consequences for them over there. But you, quite obviously, don't give a shit.

One word, one sentence, or something. Anything. To counter Manolo's depraved statements. But you don't have it in you.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 20:20  

#105  What TW said. Double.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-07-09 20:06  

#104  Surely you are capable of more than generalizing and namecalling, an odd taste in amusement it seems to me. ... Kindly go fuck yourself.

Interesting...trailing wife, to say the least. This could get even more uglier, but I'm not that type of person. You are a hypocrite. The end.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 20:05  

#103  Both of my parents were at the receiving end of a real genocide attempt, Mr. NAH. My grandmother's memoir is in the Holocaust Museum in Washington and in Yad Vashem, where my mother's rescuers recently received awards as Righteous Gentiles. I know the difference between targetted killings of those who plan and execute violence against innocent civilians, and the dupes they are training in the Madrassahs for the next wave, and the organized attempt to destroy an entire people down to suckling babes. You are either a vicious ass or, despite reading through Fred's archives for bits to throw up at us with disapproving mien, a hopelessly biased and ignorant ass. You do not deserve to have your freedoms protected by the men and women of our and other nation's armed forces. Kindly go fuck yourself.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-09 19:57  

#102  N.A.H. - I think trailing wife was trying to be helpful. I don't think your comment helps your argument.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-07-09 19:57  

#101  tw, nice try, but attempting to educate the insistently ignorant is an exercise in frustration. He's made up his mind, and nothing, especially evidence that contradicts his world view, is going to change it.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 19:51  

#100  This is an IT's Nightmare!
Posted by: 1337 DuDe   2006-07-09 19:37  

#99  Ever worn a uniform, NAH? Ever been in combat? Ever done anything solely in service of your country? Know anything, anything at all, about that which you pontificate on at length?

O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book; as you have
books for good manners: I will name you the degrees.
The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the
Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the
fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the
Countercheque Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with
Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All
these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may
avoid that too, with an If. I knew when seven
justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the
parties were met themselves, one of them thought but
of an If, as, 'If you said so, then I said so;' and
they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the
only peacemaker; much virtue in If.

---

Consider well, before you answer with another Lie Direct.
Posted by: flyover   2006-07-09 19:26  

#98  That's funny trailing wife, really funny. Defending the indefensible. What sort of credentials would you need to find genocide abhorrent, in your world?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 19:19  

#97  That alright N.A.H. you give the children a chance, when they blow you hell and they will then we don't have to hear you morale outrage anymore.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-07-09 19:07  

#96  I kept asking you whether it was OK to use genocidal tactics against a society that is trying to inflict genocide on you.

I presume you've already made up your mind that all Muslims are trying to inflict genocide on you. Because I'm not at that point yet. That's a mighty big leap to take, but completely understandable for someone who spends his entire time on Rantburg reading articles about how bad all Muslims are.

But to answer your question (in the abstract, I'll admit), I'd say war against the genocidal is justified, but genocide is not. The difference being, no matter how brainwashed the children are, I'd still give them a chance, whereas you, apparently, would not. But that's just me, it seems.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 19:05  

#95  N. A. H. stands for Noone At Home.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-09 19:01  

#94  And Dr. White's colour is salmon. If your computer reads it as pink, you may have a bit of a problem.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-09 19:01  

#93  Clearly the "Stephen's Guide" link needs to be updated for NAH, because he may have failed to use a few of the logical fallacies that used to be listed there.
Posted by: ryuge   2006-07-09 18:59  

#92  Mr. N.A.H. (what does that stand for, by the way?), let me help you with some background, so that you can argue more intelligently with the people here. Surely you are capable of more than generalizing and namecalling, an odd taste in amusement it seems to me. I offer this because a good many of Rantburger's regulars, including site owner Mr. Pruitt, were or are professionals in the areas upon which they choose to comment. Unlike me -- I'm just a little Midwestern housewife who's lived abroad and has an interest in such things -- and clearly unlike you, my dear.

I would not dream of suggesting any of the Conservative American weblogs, becaust that won't actually help you when you rejoin us -- although quite a few American Conservatives, and even some Republicans, do hang out here, this is not actually a political site. Fred Pruitt set up this site to track the quiet movements of the War on Terror, since he had retired some years earlier for active involvement in the game.

So. First, go to the Middle East Media Resource Institute, where they've been translating key speeches, publications and textbooks from various Arab and Muslim and even Israeli politicians, religious leaders and educators for about a decade now. Steep yourself in the memes, the threats and promises, and the educational atmosphere the Saudis, the Syrians, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and the Palestinians have created for themselves and their children. Observe what the Israelis have said and done by comparison. I imagine you'll want to take a long shower afterward... I generally shake for days, but I am oversensitive to unkindness of any sort. You may want to follow that by a visit to the CAIR website, to see what they have to say about Muslim-on-unbeliever violence and terror. I don't have that link, but anyone capable of finding Rantburg can find them, too. Afterward you'll want to Google CAIR's leadership -- a fascinating bunch. Then poke about in Rantburg's archives, and spend a little time in Thugburg. Just read the articles and judge for yourself, remembering that all the articles are from open sources; the link to the original is embedded in the title, so go see some for yourself. The essence of Rantburg is to present raw information for the insights of the denizens, leveraging the strength of the internet beyond the extensive knowledge of Mr. Pruitt himself. (You would be shocked about what a good civil engineer can tell about how not to make the world's biggest dam in China, or an observant Frenchman about the suburb-trapped Muslims of his country, or an American expat in China about the temper of the people over there.)

When you know enough to argue intelligently, come back. Otherwise please don't waste your time demonstrating yourself to be a childish idiot. The world has a surfeit of those, and none are nearly as amusing as they fancy.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-09 18:58  

#91  C'mon, NAH, didn't your daddy teach that if you ever let the kids on the playground get your goat, they're just going to keep screwing with you?

I tried having that debate last time with you, morality-boy. I kept asking you whether it was OK to use genocidal tactics against a society that is trying to inflict genocide on you. You took an absolutist view on genocide and refused to answer my questions. An absolutist position is OK, but it doesn't make for much of a "debate."

I dunno, maybe you're a Quaker and don't feel that it's ever OK to fight back. Or maybe you're one of those dudes who feels that the US is so powerful that there are no credible threats out there anymore. Maybe you never read that Lenin took over Russia and launched a genocide with about 5000 hardcore cell members or that Hitler hijacked Germany, launched a World War, and started his own genocide with a with a gang of incompetents, drug adicts, and perverts. Maybe it has never occurred to you that the alliance known as The United Nations during WWII committed what would now be classified as genocide against the Third Reich and Dai Nippon to end those little parties. Or that we threatened genocide against the USSR from about 1953 to 1989 to keep those boys in check.

So if you want to answer my question (is genocide justified against the genocidal?) then we can have a debate. Otherwise, make your point and go away.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-07-09 18:32  

#90  narcissists don't feel shame....
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 18:31  

#89  Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaa, no N.A.H. I don't really care about Nov. 8 2008, oh and guess what I am not a righty or a lefty. You need to get over yourself and quit highjacking threads.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-07-09 18:31  

#88  It's always interesting to watch someone who lacks the smallest scintilla of shame attempting to wield shame as a weapon.
Posted by: flyover   2006-07-09 18:29  

#87  You'll care this November and in 2008. But by that time you'll be calling for a civil war like the moonbat you are. The islamofascists won't have much to do in the US, thanks to you.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 18:26  

#86  
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-07-09 18:23  

#85  Oh my N.A.H. fiqured us out we don't like muzzies much. Dude get a F*cking life nobody cares about what you think of us.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-07-09 18:02  

#84  He will never engage in argument, just preach.

You want to debate this statement? Ten years ago I never would have thought it possible that I would advocate the extermination of an entire group of people.

What's there to debate? Like Sweden in 1939, you want to debate which side you're on?

This is the dude that was here a few weeks ago preaching about what a bunch of genocidal nutz we all are.

Brilliant, Sherlock.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 17:56  

#83  no N.A.H. your just an asshole, a lefty asshole we have seen your kind before and we will see your kind again when you leave.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-07-09 17:48  

#82  This is the dude that was here a few weeks ago preaching about what a bunch of genocidal nutz we all are. He will never engage in argument, just preach.
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-07-09 17:47  

#81  OOOoooohhhhh..... name calling.....

Why do they always resort to name calling?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-07-09 17:47  

#80  Left, right...you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 17:43  

#79  excellent derailing of the thread NAH.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 17:32  

#78  It's salmon, not pepto.

I'll assume that's a yes. Care to clarify the following comment? What sort of gruesome acts did you have in mind?

I appreciate Dave D.'s list of options. I'm also pretty much in lotp's corner. I'd prefer not to commit gruesome acts, but as Old Spook notes, the Islamicists started this, not me: however gruesome it gets, they're not going to get me, my country and (especially) my daughter. The liberals who find this distasteful had better find a way to shut the Islamicists down; if they can't, I'll ratchet my way up Dave's list til I find something that does the job.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 17:23  

#77  AP, you have grass in Alaska?
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 17:18  

#76  Wait until the muzzie yute Car B Que's start in Fwance , AP. This is popcorn weather!
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-07-09 17:12  

#75  Geeze Louise! I just came in from mowing the lawn and madness is popping up like daisies. If y'all want, I can run the olde snapper through the thread once, heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-07-09 17:08  

#74  It's not the Muslims in the middle east I had in mind.
Well that leaves most of 1 billion not shaking in their curly-toed slippers over a comment at Rantburg.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-07-09 17:04  

#73  I sense the presence of abu Troll Slicer.

That or it's the Malt Likker again.

Posted by: 6   2006-07-09 17:01  

#72  To equate N.A.H. with Aris is an insult, guys.

An insult to Aris, that is. At least Aris came up with a good point now and then. N.A.H. can't manage that.

Now, Cassini, Left Angle, and the rest of that ilk, yeah....he/she/it's more like that.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 16:50  

#71  It's salmon, not pepto.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 16:49  

#70  I don't see the difference between the fear that she provoked in one particular person, and the fear instilled in one particular group by some of the comments here. To be outraged at one and not the other is hypocritical.

Nice sophistry there. I have rarely seen someone on any side of the political spectrum better put into practice the ancient saying, "If I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I'll baffle them with bullshit." Bravo on your performance in this thread.

Anyway, cheerio....got to watch the World Cup. Go France! (They've been amazing in this tournament, and I'd like JFM to have another excuse to party.)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 16:43  

#69  So Steve, are those comments yours or not? (in general, the pepto colored ones)
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 16:33  

#68  A Friday night, somewhere in the Middle East

It's not the Muslims in the middle east I had in mind.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 16:26  

#67  #11 absolootlee diskustin. >:(

Beautifully put, as always, Mucky! =)

Nice to see you over there at PW, btw.
Posted by: docob   2006-07-09 16:25  

#66  Check your shoes, n a h, I think you stepped in something.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-07-09 16:24  

#65  "Aris is back!"

Either that, or this annoying pest has the exact same mental condition...

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-09 16:21  

#64  N.A.H.:

"Destroy the madrasses, with the Muslim children inside. Past time to go Viking on these barbaric throw-backs."

I posted that, and it isn't a fantasy born out of rage or frustration. I also stand by the comment. Muzzy kids in madrasses spend their time being programmed into the next wave of hateful killers, by the time they're 9 or 10 years old the programming can't be undone.

I've resigned myself to the knowledge that we will ultimately have to destroy most of the Islamic world, or be destroyed ourselves. In fact, they state as much. And when either one happens, lots of children will be killed, I would rather it be theirs.

My original text in Comment #12 can be read here.

Dr. Frisch made threats towards a specific individual, others here have attempted to enlighten you so I won't cover that. I do encourage you to crawl back into whatever hole you crawled out of.

-M
Posted by: Manolo   2006-07-09 16:19  

#63  
You're blind to a point when it suits you and an eagle-eye hairsplitter when that suits. Doesn't matter, now.

See? It's Aris.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-07-09 16:18  

#62  

I don't see the difference between the fear that she provoked in one particular person, and the fear instilled in one particular group by some of the comments here. To be outraged at one and not the other is hypocritical.

Aris is back!
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-07-09 16:17  

#61  Time to sink trap this fool like was done with Bird Dirt - Cassini - Left Angle...

This type of person only wants to provoke - not teach or convince. And he/she/it cannot be themselves convinced.

Morality indeed. I LOL when I see the left trying to argue morality.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-07-09 16:16  

#60  1st Overtime.

It was cute when you were just being a pretentious twat, posing and preening and positioning for an imagined moral "gotcha" moment.

Now you've lied. Plainly, clearly, obviously, stupidly lied.

You're blind to a point when it suits you and an eagle-eye hairsplitter when that suits. Doesn't matter, now.

Just another argumentative "I like to hear myself type!" liar.

2nd Overtime.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 16:15  

#59  A Friday night, somewhere in the Middle East
--
Rasheed: "Did you read what they said on Rantburg?"
Qazi: "No, what now?"
Rasheed: "Someone wrote that they were going to destroy ALL of the madrassas!"
Qazi: "Oh no! All of them? What a powerful individual to be able to do such a thing!"
Rasheed: "It is worse: he will do it with all of the children inside."
Qazi: "I quake with great fear at the prospect of those commenters at Rantburg!"
Posted by: eLarson   2006-07-09 16:15  

#58  Get the difference now?

I don't see the difference between the fear that she provoked in one particular person, and the fear instilled in one particular group by some of the comments here. To be outraged at one and not the other is hypocritical.

Cheanter5148, I thought you were watching the world cup?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 16:05  

#57  Was she that specific? I may have to read over her comments again. What got most people upset, imo, was that she chose to involve someone's children, not that she attacked a specific person. (In fact, it was an attack on a child).

What a pile of steaming disingenuous bullshit.

She was specifically threatening Jeff Goldstein's child - and you know it, dickhead.

You're a poseur -- and a liar.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 15:51  

#56  Ok, N.A.H., read her comments again. Out of respect for Fred, I'm not posting them here.

There is a definite, specific person she is referring to in those comments. It is not children in general, or people who live in Colorado. Mr Goldstein has only one child, a son aged two. He has no other children. She could not possibly be referring to anyone else.

Knowing how people here react, I don't think they particularily care if it was his kid she was referring to, his grandmother, his mother in law, or his next door neighbor. It was the wish of grievous harm and unwanted sexual activity on a specific person, regardless of age, that got everyone sick.

Get the difference now?

Leave morality out of it. Your morality is not the same as mine, nor necessarily of anyone else here. We can argue all day, and not convince anyone of a single damn thing. That's happened countless times here on the 'burg.

I'm not judging her on the morality, or lack thereof, of her statements. I have the right to say she's revolting and should be locked up in a mental ward until she is cured. You have the right to say she's simply misunderstood.

But to rationalize it with a "but...but.....he said x!!" will get your ass beaten down here any day of the week.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 15:49  

#55  Think of the reaction if this was aimed toward Americans...

Hey, NAH. This kind of BS is directed towards Americans every day in the Muslim press. I suppose you would know this if you got out more.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-07-09 15:21  

#54  Swamp Blondie, Rantburg is not a court of law. Neither is the world wide web. I'm not arguing the legal aspect...if you hadn't noticed.

It's the difference between "Death to America!" and "Death to Maynard G Krebs of 1234 Boston Lane in Podunk Ohio".

Was she that specific? I may have to read over her comments again. What got most people upset, imo, was that she chose to involve someone's children, not that she attacked a specific person. (In fact, it was an attack on a child). But then, reading over some people's comments here, one might get the impression that children are not off limits.

At this point, no one side holds the higher moral ground. I used to think it was the side represented by the folks on this website.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 15:08  

#53  If you honestly can't tell the difference between a "burn 'em all" remark and a "I hope your toddler gets Jon-Beneted" post, well, you frighten me. Seriously, you do.

That's a fine attempt at rationalizing it, I guess. If you can so easily dismiss "kill all the kids in the madrassas", then you frighten me as well. Seriously, you do.

Ok....to make it blindingly obvious.....one is revolting, although acceptable, under the First Amendment to the Constitution. One is directed against a specific individual, and is not considered to be protected speech. There is a huge difference there. This may shock you, but in a court of law, personal morality, either yours or mine, does not enter into it here.

It's the difference between "Death to America!" and "Death to Maynard G Krebs of 1234 Boston Lane in Podunk Ohio". One is an idiotic posting, one is a specific threat.

Surely you can tell the difference now?

I hope you weren't planning on being an attorney, or anyone else dealing with legal issues on a daily basis, N.A.H. You just flunked criminal law 101.

But fret not, I think there's an instructor position opening up at a state college in the southwest shortly in the psychology department....
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 14:58  

#52  in fact, that's what this whole website is about: a reaction to the various "burn 'em all" screeds by the islamofascists!

That's certainly not how I see it, for sure.

Lgf would be a tad more like that, in its comments perhaps, but both are more like spotlights, pointing attention to facts and events that needs to be brought to daylight, with some analysis (worth what is worth, but which often impress clueless me), and some very nice humor (the Site Boss and Owner is a witty one, made me laugh out loud online for the first time, though toen was seriouser initially IMHO).

This website is part of my "ré-information" cure, I've found it in december 2002 IIRc, and I've been more than reasonably faithful to it since, even if there's a gap between my background and many commenters ' own ones, because I think the worldview it promotes is *right*. At least, if fits mine.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-07-09 14:38  

#51  I'm not really sure muslims all over are so worried by what's written by undescript westerners in the blogosphere to be holding their breath in fear.

No, not all. But it adds fuel to the fire. You can rationalize this, like Blondie mentiones, any you want. Think of the reaction if this was aimed toward Americans...in fact, that's what this whole website is about: a reaction to the various "burn 'em all" screeds by the islamofascists!

If you honestly can't tell the difference between a "burn 'em all" remark and a "I hope your toddler gets Jon-Beneted" post, well, you frighten me. Seriously, you do.

That's a fine attempt at rationalizing it, I guess. If you can so easily dismiss "kill all the kids in the madrassas", then you frighten me as well. Seriously, you do.

The point is, if you're going to throw stones, move out of that glass house of yours.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 14:26  

#50  I'm sure Muslims all over are breathing easier now.

I'm not really sure muslims all over are so worried by what's written by undescript westerners in the blogosphere to be holding their breath in fear. Frankly, I've trouble seeing muslims all over as helpless victims randomly bullied and discriminated against by the Man. I do not see them (or at least the active minority which always make things happens regardless of who we're talking about, with the silent majority falling back behind in various grades of support/indifference) as passive and under siege, quite the contrary.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-07-09 14:11  

#49  As one of the liberal regulars around here, allow me another 2 cents (yes, AA2635, et al, there are a few lurking around here....shocka!)

Knock it off with the "but so-and-so said....", or whatever rationalizations you can come up with that are at best, tangentially applicable to this discussion.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between a "burn 'em all" remark and a "I hope your toddler gets Jon-Beneted" post, well, you frighten me. Seriously, you do.

Do you go ballistic on lefty sites, when someone posts a "kill all the repugs" or something similar? I'll take a wild guess....I bet you don't. I know I don't. I just roll my eyes. You, on the other hand, probably bust a gut and post followups with at least one "LOL!" or "ROTFLMAO!"

Whether you like to admit it or not, what she posted is a crime. What she is accused of, and has not denied doing, is grounds for felony charges in Arizona.

You do not speak for the rest of us on the left, and my moonbat buddies got disgusted when they read her sick threats, none of which Frisch has denied posting.

Just please, drop it. Now. There are other far more worthy causes to defend on the lefty side than some unhinged lunatic in desperate need of therapy, medication, and a and possibly a criminal defense lawyer.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 13:56  

#48  You're ever so entertaining, in that smug self-righteous buffoon sort of way, but the World Cup Final is starting. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to watch grown men fall down and fake injury. Buh-bye for now, but do fight on! You're a real beacon... and stuff.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 13:47  

#47  "You don't get very many hypocrites either."

Aye, so true. But you can be our RB Hypocrite of the Day - if you're really determined, LOL.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 13:28  

#46  BTW, Mr. Steve White, do those pepto-colored comments belong to you?
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 13:27  

#45  Behaving as if you're more than one person is grounds for being banned

Sorry, didn't know that. It's the anonymizer.
Posted by: N.A.H.   2006-07-09 13:26  

#44  You don't get very many hypocrites either.
Posted by: Sleaque Elmulet8218   2006-07-09 13:24  

#43  AA2635, SC2824 and GC9206 are the same person, using different anon names but with the same IP.

Dear Multiple Personality: if you want to post repeatedly, pick a nym and stick with it. Behaving as if you're more than one person is grounds for being banned. We don't tolerate that sort of behavior.

Steve (AoS) moderator
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 13:24  

#42  LOL. Heavens to Mergatroid!

It's a Moral Superior and Equivalencer Expert!

Gosh, we don't get many like you around here.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 13:16  

#41  And you might consider that when a threat goes from the general to the specific, the individual, it is very very different legally.

I suppose it is, legally. Morally, however....oh but wait....you don't care about that though. Sorry. My mistake.
Posted by: Slavimp Chaviter2824   2006-07-09 13:11  

#40  Link is all mixed up (are you on an anonymizer?), but it's very probable someone made that remark;

Yes I am anonymizing. It's in the classics page if you want to confirm it.

As for the RB comment, it is a very common brand of "kill them all and let God sort them out", "Go medieval on them",... fantaisy

Oh so it's just fantasy. Glad you cleared that up, I was getting worried there for a minute. I'm sure Muslims all over are breathing easier now.
Posted by: Glaving Crolung9206   2006-07-09 13:07  

#39  AA (Angry Asshole) - That was Tony Curtis. Always took his roles a little too seriously.

And you might consider that when a threat goes from the general to the specific, the individual, it is very very different legally. It usually mean yo ass, in fact.

Please, continue being angry. You might have a heart attack. Please try to do it while typing a comment here. Make "Submit" the last thing you ever do, okay?

Is that a threat?

LOL.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 13:04  

#38  Just an aside: U of AZ in in Tucson, ASU is in Tempe.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-07-09 12:58  

#37  Ah, so it's the attack on children that's got everyone in an uproar. Where was the outrage when some rightwinger wrote this (here on this website):

"Destroy the madrasses, with the Muslim children inside. Past time to go Viking on these barbaric throw-backs." Link.

Link is all mixed up (are you on an anonymizer?), but it's very probable someone made that remark;

I'd say that the PW comments are ad nominem, aimed at hurting and worrying a given person, they're threats (though, to be honest, I'm pretty sure it's more of a mental masturbation by this nice lady, she's getting thrills out of it, like ytrolls do, the goal is probably not to threaten per se). They can lead to prosecution, and I hope they will, because it's how it's works in the real world : threaten someone, you might have unexpected consequences.

As for the RB comment, it is a very common brand of "kill them all and let God sort them out", "Go medieval on them",... fantaisy, born out of the frustation caused by the PC-enforced western way of war (face it, none of theses extreme methods is ever going to be used, neither by the israeli nor the USA).

Reality vs Fantasy, simple as that.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-07-09 12:56  

#36  Ah, so it's the attack on children that's got everyone in an uproar. Where was the outrage when some rightwinger wrote this (here on this website):

"Destroy the madrasses, with the Muslim children inside. Past time to go Viking on these barbaric throw-backs." Link.
Posted by: Angeretch Angoluth2635   2006-07-09 12:40  

#35  Jeff's site apparently is up now at 11:30 am CDT.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 12:27  

#34  Nimble: full professors are not necessarily tenured. Most universities now have a non-tenure track that incorporates all ranks. These are particularly prevelant in medical schools, where you want to keep good clinical faculty but not give them tenure.

I'm on such a track.

Non-tenured professors are also seen in some other specialty schools (e.g., nursing, engineering).

Just to keep things straight :-)
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 12:17  

#33  A couple more quick points after spending part of yesterday spelunking around Dr. Frisch's website and the shitstorm at several other websites:

1) the pointer to the NSF web site that some have bandied around (saying that she used to work for the National Science Foundation) is problematic: if you click on either the 'home page' link or the 'funding page' link, you'll see that both have been removed by the NSF. The e-mail link is for a 'dfrisch' but I suspect there is more than one person in our country with that first initial and last name.

2) Dr. Frisch has had a couple of academic positions. One was a tenure-track position at the University of Oregon, which (by old posts in her blog) she accepted after gaining her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. She was denied tenure but then had two years at the U of O as adjunct faculty. Such adjunct positions are usually (not always) at the rank of 'instructor'. That was also her title and track at the University of Arizona. She's not, and never has been, a 'professor'. She's been faculty.

3) There seems to be a gap in her employment history from Oregon to Arizona.

4) You might never see an announcement from the U of A on her resignation. Adjunct faculty are hired and dismissed all the time, and 99.9% of the time it's done without any public notice. The very most you might get at some point, if you contacted the Dept. of Psychology there, is a 'there is no such faculty person by that name here.' (and I don't advocate calling or harrassing the U of A in any way).

I hope Mr. Goldstein can get his site back on line (if anyone knows of a safe tipjar to help him out please let me know), and I hope Dr. Frisch gets the help she clearly needs.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 12:15  

#32  Associate Professors can also come in tenured and non-tenured varieties. Full Professors are all tenured. I have never heard of a tenured Assistant, but I suppose it's possible.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-09 12:15  

#31  Also, a comment on her rank: Dr. Frisch is not and has not been a 'professor' at the University of Arizona.

She is on the adjunct faculty with the rank of instructor, according to their web site.

I'm an academic person myself but I'm not a 'professor' either -- I'm an 'associate professor' (one rank down). While it may seem to be a minor point, these ranks do mean something in the academic world in terms of one's value to the institution and respect with which one is held in the academic community. The order is generally professor > associate professor > assistant professor > instructor > lecturer; the latter generally is not a position on any tenure track.

An adjunct faculty person is not on a regular faculty track (tenure or non-tenure). Adjunct faculty are hired as essentially 'temporary' workers who fill needs that aren't being met by the regualar faculty. For example, Dr. Frisch was teaching a statistics class in the Dept. of Psychology at the U. of A. Adjunct faculty generally are hired and dismissed at will and don't ordinarily go through the same vetting process as regular track faculty.

Adjuncts are used extensively at some institutions, and there's a less than happy history as to how adjuncts are routinely mis-treated.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 12:04  

#30  I left a couple comments yesterday at her website, neither was published (pity).

I suggested to her that she needs a better apology: she need to allocute as to what she did, why she did it, and make clear that she recognizes she was wrong. As it is, her apology is more of the "I'm sorry I was caught" variety.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-07-09 12:04  

#29  As BDS is becoming more and more widespread, this type of vitriol will become commonplace. The right should use LAW ENFORCEMENT and forget about public discourse, calls to employers or demands for apologies. The PC laws created by loons like this should be used against them.

She lost her job at U of A? Big f*cking deal. She ought to be in jail.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-07-09 11:36  

#28  Let's just hope that the Arizona Wildcats do better in basketball this season...

not that that's relevant or anything.
Posted by: badanov   2006-07-09 11:35  

#27  Its the result of having no rules... no morals... just a 'me first' [at any price] attitude. Parents who allowed their spawn to get away with anything and everything (so that they are 'free' ya know) probably had something to do with it.

Potty-training with a cattle prod might have actually helped her.... (not that I suggest such a technique....)

(And no, I am not any kind of shrink....)
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-07-09 11:28  

#26  I've just spent the last two hours going through the Protein Wisdom blog watching this almost unbelievable self-destruction happen.

It's quite unreal.

I think this is the woman, not the (rather cute) woman HTML guy posted (it's from her site after all).

Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-07-09 11:26  

#25  How the hell do people end up like her, anyway? Did her parents potty-train her with a cattle prod or something?
Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-09 11:17  

#24  nice - they have a child in the house? Someone needs to get Child Protective Services out there
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 11:06  

#23  Here's an item in the Feb. 24, 2004 Arizona Star mentioning Crazy Debbie as the "domestic partner" of one Cecile McKee (see caption on the picture accompanying the article).

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-07-09 11:00  

#22  I find the following post from her own site to be particularly insightful [with my own snarky comments for added effect]:

-------
faux newz, etc.

A guy from Fox News named Richard Carbery emailed and wants to interview me on the phone on Monday. It's almost as exciting as when I was interviewed by Richard Harris for NPR. I will try to find a copy of that interview and post it.

The dept head at the UA formally accepted my resignation this afternoon. [Do you hear that, Deb? It's a bit deafening, I know, but it is the sound of millions of people applauding.]

Rightwing nutcases with nothing better to do on the weekend might want to stop harassing University of Arizona administrators. Just a thought.

Looks like someone at TalkLeft is siding with Mr. Goldstein. But here's a commenter named bigunit12 who gets it:

On one hand, what she wrote was wrong. But, on the other hand, it was only word. How many dead Iraqi mothers,American and Iraqi fathers, and Iraqi children are conservatives responsible for? [Time to play a little CYA, is it Deb?]

It is unbelievable that a comment saying I would not care if harm came to your child is such a crime to the rightwingnuts when they've been happy as clams to send American dupes to murder, maim, rape and torture (yup folks - depriving people of electricity and clean water is a form of torture!) Iraqi children for four years.

Posted by Deb at 07:45 PM

[Crazy IS as crazy DOES.]
-------


Posted by: eltoroverde   2006-07-09 10:32  

#21  Google "Deborah Frisch" and the first thing you get is "Deborah Frisch: A Psychologist's Defense of Ward Churchill". Figures.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-07-09 10:20  

#20  Evergreen State Collage in the Peoples Republic of Washington (state) would probably welcome her with open arms tho.... dammit! After all they spawned St. Pancake and her parents.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-07-09 10:17  

#19  A5089, let me shake off the cobwebs for a moment and review what little I know of Arizona Revised Statutes.

Stalking is defined in ARS 13-2923 as the following:

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either:

1. Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person's safety or the safety of that person's immediate family member and that person in fact fears for their safety or the safety of that person's immediate family member.

2. Would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent physical injury to or death of that person or that person's immediate family member and that person in fact fears imminent physical injury to or death of that person or that person's immediate family member.

B. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Course of conduct" means maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or
directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, but does not include constitutionally protected activity.

2. "Immediate family member" means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person's household or resided in a person's household within the past six months.

Arizona also has laws prohibiting harassment and aggravated harassment. See §§13-2921 and §§13-2921.01

I might be off on the penalties, but a class 5 carries a possible sentence of probation up to 2 years at the state penitentiary. Class 3's are more serious. The penalty is possible probation all the way up to 8 3/4 years in the state penitentiary. All felonies carry a possible fine up to 150k.

IF, and it's a big if, Mr Goldstein wished to press charges and if there was a prosecutor in Pima County willing to go for it, there could be a definite possibility for the class 5 felony charge. The class 3 would be harder to prove.

Anyway, I don't think she's going to find Oregon much more hospitable. She ran into trouble up there before (not sure on the details) and had to accept a demotion in lieu of getting canned. This sure ain't gonna help the situation when she passes her resume around for consideration. I'd be amazed if even a desperate community college would have her on staff now.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-09 09:56  

#18  Ugh!

That picture HTML Guy is begging for a caption contest. (Or better yet a photoshop contest...).

"Well I'm the victim here..."

Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-07-09 09:55  

#17  now she's a google-hit as a freak and nut. If you live in Oregon be careful at the local fast food drive thru window. The psycho PhD's destined to a career asking: "you want to biggie-size that drink? Fries with that?"
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-09 09:48  

#16  HTMLguy, I don't think that's her - there's another link on the site (which typically I can't find now) which shows someone else.

By the way, don't mess with the Protein Wisdom folks - they are *mean!*
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2006-07-09 09:41  

#15  There was NOTHING in the comments towards Freaksh that merited her response. She was literally begging to be banned -- apparently as some sort of badge of honor -- but Jeff refused to. So she kept getting more and more extreme.

Do some digging and you'll find she has a long history of trolling, though none as extreme as this.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-07-09 08:57  

#14  The Broad even L@@KS crazy!



Posted by: HTML Guy   2006-07-09 08:41  

#13  Baldilocks had some very wise things to say, including this:

Jeff’s site has been under sustained DOS attacks for days since Frisch’s dark musings--either from her or her sympathizers. That a person who “jokes” about molesting and murdering a child could actually have people so sympathetic to her “plight” that they would sabotage the site of that child’s father is what is most appalling—and telling.

These saboteurs may harbor the same type of evil notions as Frisch, however I suspect that they don’t. Likely, they are mere political partisans who disagree with Jeff’s demonstrably conservative and well-articulated stances so strenuously, that they are willing to stand with Frisch—a leftist, anti-war BDS-sufferer—and take overt action on her behalf, while overlooking her perversion and murderous intent. And it is these people—those who would give quarter to the Frisches of this world; who believe that politics trump decency—who are the most dangerous.
Posted by: Mike   2006-07-09 07:40  

#12  Kirk and others, keep in mind that it appears she was teaching as an adjunct precisely because she was denied tenure at her original school, Univ. Oregon.

Further, she was listed on the UA site with the academic rank of "Instructor", which is about the equivalent of "Private" in the army. For someone with a PhD and 13 years' experience, which is what I'm inferring from some online info, that's a surprisingly junior rank. So in this case, at least, the academicians clearly agreed that something was missing or not quite up to standard in her teaching and/or her scholarship.
Posted by: lotp   2006-07-09 06:41  

#11  absolootlee diskustin. >:(
Posted by: muck4doo   2006-07-09 06:03  

#10  I've always thought a trade - electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc. - to be an honorable and reasonably well-paying alternative, JFM.

Yes, I'm with you on the hard sciences and engineering, but the last thing this country needs is another frustrated cab driver with a meaningless degree. Or another Adjunct Professor of Psychology.
Posted by: Kirk   2006-07-09 05:20  

#9  Doctor, heal thyself! I recommend something in a .40 or .45, myself. Best to get it right the first time.

I believe, were I an Oregonian, that I'd make certain that they know the full story here - and that I wouldn't even consider sending my children to any institution that would employ her.

And whatever board has oversight on her license to practice should also be alerted and action demanded.
Posted by: Uleatch Cheanter5148   2006-07-09 05:19  

#8  
Something to ponder for those of you ponying up $thousands$ for junior's college degree.


When my daughetrs grow enough I will be my utmost for helping them if they study engineering, hard science or any other marketable carreer.

Now for cutural studies or pseudo-sciences like sociology they will be in their own (ie don't count on daddy to fund you)
Posted by: JFM   2006-07-09 05:02  

#7  For the whole sordid story, just search for "southwestpaw", handle of the whackjob in question, on Jeff's site: http://www.proteinwisdom.com. (Sorry about my ineptitude with the link thingy.) Don't forget to scrape the sh*t off your shoes when done.

Lengthy, but worthwhile for the upclose view of lefty derangement. Jeff's posters are alternatively repelled and amazed, but thoroughly entertaining throughout.

This would be great fodder for a psych paper, especially since the author-lunatic holds a psychology Ph.D. herself. And was an "Adjunct Professor of Psychology" at the University of Arizona, until she defecated where she ate. Something to ponder for those of you ponying up $thousands$ for junior's college degree.

Fellow Oregonians will be delighted to know said assclown has decided to plunk her arse down in Eugene, moonbat central for the Pacific Northwest. How nice!
Posted by: Kirk   2006-07-09 04:19  

#6  Remember: These are the people who support those who try to blow Isreali maternities, the people who feel morally superior to us evil conservatives.
Posted by: JFM   2006-07-09 04:14  

#5  Barking moonbat, crazed narcissist, trolling psychopath? Pick one or some combination thereof.

Whatever the case, Jeff's caustic wit certainly pushed her buttons just enough to send her over the edge. Not that more than a nudge was required, mind you.

Appalling stuff. And I hope she faces serious legal consequences. If any child of mine had been degraded and threatened in such a manner ... well, happily none was.

American Academia in Action, 2006
Posted by: Kirk   2006-07-09 03:38  

#4  Two remarks :

- I sincerely hope this will lead to law involvement, this is not 1st amendement, but actual threatening; it would be good for her to have her all-powerful internet loony bubble popped, and be given a dose of Reality(Tm).

- Aren't you all warm and fuzzy she's the one who teaches your children, along with plenty of her ilk? I mean, it can only benefit them, can't it? The progressive culture war (aka gramscian subversion) has a face, and it's that nice lady's.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-07-09 03:24  

#3  Protein Wisdom is accessible now.

But I still feel I'm not getting the entire story...What kind of post/ thread caused this meltdown?

She says she was also threatened and wanted to give them "a taste of their own medecine". Who knows. Maybe she was conducting a pscyhology experiment. LLLs like to conduct experiments.
Posted by: Thrique Chaimble1101   2006-07-09 01:45  

#2  Well there's a nifty little example of self destruction! Kinda reminds me of the Dixie Chix.
Posted by: Clolurong Check5903   2006-07-09 01:33  

#1  Absolutely, Frish's comments are beyond the pale. I'm happy to see her lose her job, either voluntarily or forcefully.

But I still feel I'm not getting the entire story, since Protein Wisdom is down. What kind of post/ thread caused this meltdown?

I have yet to see the topic that triggered this feldergarb.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2006-07-09 01:27  

00:00