pageok
pageok
pageok
More On "'Hunting Terrorists' At Bucknell":

The other day I posted on Evan Coyne Maloney's report of students being called on the carpet at Bucknell for inviting a speaker to campus who was advertised as "Hunting Terrorists" at Bucknell. Maloney has an update on subsequent developments and now it appears that Bucknell is backpedaling rapidly.

The new post has the entirety of the "fairly unfortunate language" of the email in question that triggered the meeting (this seems to be the entire text):

Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:04:14 -0400 To: "Bucknell Faculty Staff and Students" From: Matt Gabler Subject: [CAMPUS:8789] The Real Story from the Frontlines Where were you during the months following September 11? Major John Krenson was hunting terrorists.

The Real Story from the Frontlines: Major John Krenson details his experiences as the Chief Intelligence Liaison Officer between the US Coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Gardner lecture Hall (Dana Engineering) September 6 7:00 PM

This event is brought to you by the BUCC, Dean Ferraro, and Young America's Foundation. www.bucknellconservatives.org www.thecounterweight.org

Bucknell contends that the "hunting terrorists" issue was just "one small segment" of the conversation in question and has been blown out of proportion. As Maloney suggests, not only does this appear to be inconsistent with the email correspondence surrounding the situation, but does not seem very plausible. Perhaps Bucknell's senior leadership just randomly calls in leaders of student groups to talk to them about their programming on a periodic basis, although thus would be a strange custom based on the various places I have attended and taught. And perhaps this meeting coincidentally occurred right after the "hunting terrorists" event and the College President taking personal note of it. But that story strains credulity to me.

Update:

I hadn't been following the Comments on this post closely, but in looking back at the original post, I see that one of the Bucknell students involved actually posted the text of the email in our Comments the other day here (it is the same thing I posted above).

elliottg (mail):
I don't understand why the Conservatives are playing the victims here. The problem with the language is obvious and may just be a misunderstanding of overly sensitive liberals, but the idea of hunting human beings is offensive. It's also perfectly conceivable that this was the trigger for a wide ranging discussion for a host of minor issues that had been simmering in the background. Nor is it surprising that Bucknell administration might try to diffuse things by downplaying the issue given the faux-oturage that Conservatives are so good at generating (see John Kerry pointing out Cheney's gay daughter).
10.2.2005 12:22pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
I think the real issue with campus speech codes should be the principle of free speech, rather than isolated instances of speech deemed offensive by this or that person.

The fact is "hunting terrorists" is protected speech. The debate about semantics will go all the way from those who see the term as completely acceptable, to those who are outraged. But neither of those positions are the point. The point is that we live, hopefully, is a free society where people are entitled to express their views - views that may be repugnant to others.

If I visit a campus and I see a poster that likens the U.S. President to a chimp or a nazi, am I presonally offended by this? The answer is yes. Do I think such material should be banned, censored or suppressed? The answer is no. It reflects a particular point of view and within the context of a democratic institution that purports to uphold the right to freedom of speech, it has to be allowed.

This attempt on the part of Bucknell authorities to interfere with the fair expression of conservatives, departs from the higher principle of free speech and fair opinion that is at stake here. At most the President of the University should have registered his personal displeasure, while assuring the students of their right to speak as they choose provided their language isn't overt hate speech or designed to incite violence.

The Bucknell case reflects an increasing tendency on the part of universities to control speech, under the guise of so-called "codes" intended to promote collegial harmony. What we are increasingly finding however, is that these speech codes are used to suppress opinion that the liberal establishment deems to be unacceptable.

In soviet era Russia, "samizdat" was a system of clandestine publication that allowed those to speak who were deemed to be a security risk by the state. On some campuses it is getting to the point where conservative opinion is being virtually forced underground and may require its own version of the Russian samizdat network in order to be heard.
10.2.2005 12:33pm
AnonyMouse:

The problem with the language is obvious and may just be a misunderstanding of overly sensitive liberals, but the idea of hunting human beings is offensive


Oh good grief! "Hunting" terrorists is such a commonly used term that it defies comprehension how one could object to it. Salon.com has used the term hunt for Bin Laden (or something very similar to it) in 221 different articles, the NY Times 435 times, the Washington Post 221 times.

Finally if you look in a dictionary you might stumble across these two definitions for "hunt:

1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.
2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict.
5. To seek out; search for.

6. To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away: hunted the newcomers out of town.

Seems to me number 4 is right on the money.
10.2.2005 12:45pm
AppSocREs (mail):
It reveals something about the intellect and learning of the President of Bucknell that he confuses the use of "inferred" and "implied" in an official email to student leaders. This would have gotten him an automatic F in the high school I attended.
10.2.2005 12:46pm
elliottg (mail):
Bucknell is intimately involved with the Speech rights (free or otherwise) that BUCC wants to exercise so the administration has every right to weigh in institutionally. The issue here is not Fres Speech. There was no prior restraint. The show went on and then the adminstration registered its complaint with other issues. The issue is civility and College Republicans sorely lack it in many instances. The call by BUCC in their faux-outrage to rain down their wrath upon the Bucknell administration and the wails of victimhood are just more of the same. There's a tension here between conflicting goals (Free Speech vs. civility) that the College wants to promote and BUCC is making it a major issue without acknowledging that the other side might have a point. Also, I take Bucknell's President's word at face value when he says that the conversation covered more issues than just this one incident. Can you countenance the idea that BUCC may have a history and pattern of carelessness in language that the administration wanted to address?
10.2.2005 12:51pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
Civility? Oh please! This is a subjective concept.

You cannot control speech based on presumed sensitivities related to concerns about "civility". There has to be a higher principle thrashed out so that speech "chill" doesn't turn campus life into a deep freeze.
10.2.2005 1:07pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
By the way - what exactly is "civil" about posters likening Bush to a chimp or nazi? Do you really think Bucknell authorities would have been concerned about issues of civility if the flyer had read ...

"I WAS FORCED TO HUNT TERRORISTS BY THE FASCIST BUSH ADMINISTRATION!"

I can tell you now ... we wouldn't even be reading about it.
10.2.2005 1:21pm
elliottg (mail):
Civility is not just a subjective concept unless you believe that anything that is not a physical phenomena is only subjective. Now you can care whether your words offend others or you could care less. I think that a college adminstration's concerns should encompass both a concern for Free Speech and a a concern for civility. I don't think other than 1/2 hour discussion with the President that the students were subjected to any other inconvenience. (I'm guessing the students could have refused without discipline if they did not want to be subjected to that horrible fate.) Now people are throwing around words like liar.
10.2.2005 1:28pm
Buck Turgidson (mail):
I'm not sure what all the hubbub is about, but this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is stupid vs. stupid issue. Perhaps someone can explain how a high-level liason officer was "hunting terrorists". He's a desk jockey, for crying out loud!

The admnistration is not liberal either (especially at Bucknell). These are non-professional desk jockeys who have no lives of their own, so they make everyone else's lives their business. Most have the IQ of a donut. To make them out as some sort of liberal ideologues out to persecute poor little conservatives is idiotic. These are typical functionaries with no ability for discretion or for interpreting the rules. They are literalists when it comes to policies. That's why we have speech codes. That's why we have political correctness in places where there should not be any. Sure the issues sometimes come from early liberal objections, but these are not people I would want trying to tell the difference between legitimate complaints and fringe lunacy.

As for being offended by a Bush=chimp poster, I am offended too--for the chimp.
10.2.2005 1:29pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
You show where your agrument is really coming from with your last statement Buck.

I disagree with your argument re the administration,

I know about the background of some of these players, not simply Bucknell admin people but on other campuses also where these issues have arisen. Attempting to reduce them to cogs in a machine with no agenda beyond what is in front of their nose, is simply an attempt to minimize what looks increasingly like a deliberate attempt to muzzle speech deemed "incorrect".

Of course, since you regard a chimp as more credible than your President, such attempts are unlikely to trouble you.
10.2.2005 1:44pm
Abdul:
I agree that "hunting terrorists" was offensive and an ill considered choice of words. A better construction might have been "aborting terrorist babies in order to reduce the terrorism rate."
10.2.2005 2:14pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
With all due respect Abdul ... it's not a question of whether you personally find it offensive or not. This is N. America and we have a long and proud tradition of freedom of speech that extends to all walks of life, including the cloistered corridors of places like Bucknell.

There is much in terms of leftist comment that I find offensive also, however I stand by their right to say it.

I know for a fact though that in most Muslim countries you aren't free to express your opinion on controversial issues, without risking repercussions that could well include torture, and very possibly death. This is why I am proud of our great tradition that guarantees freedom of speech to all, irrespective of their stripe.
10.2.2005 2:31pm
Bob Rogers (mail):
While I find it contemptible that some of Bucknell's administrators find the term "hunting terrorists" offensive, I think their reaction to what they deem offensive speech is quite correct. Isn't it true that they simply asked the students to come to their office and criticized their email. Unless I have missed a report (or the infamous "double secret probation" has been invoked) the students have been subjected to nothing other than verbal criticism in private. Aren't professors obligated to criticize and challenge students?
10.2.2005 4:11pm
Reginald:
I'm sorry, but it is NOT OK for administrators to be dragging students into meetings to discuss protected speech. Sure, you might consider it a mere criticism, but would you feel the same if John Ashcroft started summoning people for half-hour meetings to discuss the posters they had at anti-war protests?

(And yes, I do understand the difference between the government doing it and a school, but the end result is that it will make people think twice about using their right to speak. And that is a very dangerous road to start going down...)
10.2.2005 4:33pm
Abdul:
With all due respect Aidan, we have a long and proud tradition in Muslim countries, older and more revered than your freedom of speech.
It is known as "not being a wanker."
My first post was a joke. The point being that whether one is "hunting terrorists" or employing a reductio ad absurdum argument about genocide through abortion, a listener is bound to be thin-skinned and loud-mouthed. In this case, that someone was you.
10.2.2005 5:09pm
Buck Turgidson (mail):
Reginald, despite your disclaimer, you clearly do not understand the difference between a private university and the Justice Department of the US government. Despite the administration's position of authority, the "dialogue" need not have the appearance of an interrogation by jack-booted thugs, which is what it would be if JD tried to pull this on anyone.

Aidan, judging from the fact that you took over this thread, you appear to have a pet peeve on the subject. But, as far as "knowing" the situation, you self-proclaimed expertise lacks supporting evidence. It is quite common for university administrators--often the same ones that try to enforce supposedly liberal speech codes--to sanction students for protesting conservative visitors or conservative causes. Although humanities faculty tends to be overwhelmingly liberal and engineering and business faculty overwhelmingly conservative, there is a sense of balance in academia that only extreme ideologues (particularly outsiders) misperceive. Administration, in this case, acts to extinguish anything that can be perceived as a potential hot spot. They will douse out liberal flare-ups just as earnestly as they will conservative ones. They see a threat, not an ideological position.

This problem is not limited to universities and runs across the entire education system. This is why the NY State Regents tests sanitized literary exerpts for all sorts of reasons. It was not because of some sort of ideological bias, but because they were acting preemtively against complaints of insensitivity from either side. The same applies to the production of bland textbooks, not that publishers have been particularly successful in eschewing controversy.

There is a quantitative difference between colleges and high schools. College administrations, from an outsider's perspective, appear to institute and enforce liberally-oriented speech codes (although many liberals would oppose them). High-school administrators, on the other hand, tend sanction students for any expression of creativity and independence, which, under the current regime, tends to mean that any expression of opposition to conservatives may result in suspension. This is what happened in Wisconsin just before the 2004 elections (students were told that anyone wearing clothing expressing support for the Democrats or any attempt at protest of a visit by GW Not Chimp would result in automatic suspension; a student who brought out a handicapped child to meet Gov. Romney, saying, "Your policies hurt children such as this one" lost her stipend for working with handicapped children, until Romney expressed distaste for the administration's actions).

Of course, since you regard a chimp as more credible than your President, such attempts are unlikely to trouble you.

It is quite clear that you do not understand the difference between a principled position and a cult of personality. My opposition to a buffoon in the White House says nothing about my political ideals, other than that I don't like idiots in charge. On the other hand, demands of blind allegiance is what distinguishes societies on a path to fascism. If this is the ideology you stand behind, there is not a whole lot of difference between you and the adminstrators that you think you detest, except that they would never get to the point of killing people (even if their action may, one day, contribute to deaths). I can't say the same about you. At least, you have given me no evidence to be able to say that.
10.2.2005 5:45pm
Walter S. (mail):
Did anyone notice that this wasn't a free speech issue? According to the emails, the president had considered personally cosponsoring the event, and the discussion concerned his reasons for deciding not to do so.

I agree that objecting to the words "hunting terrorists" is pretty nearly insane, but the president is free to decide what to cosponsor on whatever basis he wants.
10.2.2005 6:52pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
Wow, the lengths people will go to find something to complain about. That applies to everyone from the President to Evan Coyne Maloney. Personally I am more bothered by the constant victim mentality of the right, reading over the horrors they had to go through over this issue. Give me a break!
10.2.2005 7:38pm
Bob Rogers (mail):
Reginald- We clearly have very different views of the power of college administrators and faculty to intimidate students. I have a very difficult time intimidating my students into doing their differential equations homework (even in a situation where their wrong answers are not protected from sanctions). The administrators have no power to "drag" students into their offices. They asked the students to come to their offices and gave their criticism in private. If the students agreed with their criticisms, things could have been dealt with out of the public gaze. If the criticisms were idiotic, the students were free to hold the administrators up to ridicule (which is precisely what happened). We are talking about 18-22 year old kids here. They say lots of stupid things. They are not delicate flowers. They can take lots of criticism from adults and ignore what they think is foolish. Someone is paying a lot of money to educate them. Their lessons in decorous speech don't seem to be worth it. Let's hope they are getting better lessons in differential equations.
10.2.2005 8:28pm
Salaryman (mail):
Frankly, seems like the 19 year olds at Bucknell may have had a better perspective on this whole thing than most of the commenters. If you'll follow the link in the update to this post, a BUCC member writes:

"I'd like to point out that the BUCC didn't make a "big deal" out of this. There was a short newsbrief in The Counterweight (periodic BUCC publication) about what happened and why we thought it was a bit ridiculous. That's it. It wasn't some huge ordeal that bogged down the entire Unversity."

I suppose his comment COULD be self serving and misleading, but unless the kid is flat out lying (which should be easy to prove), sounds like pretty much all that happened was that the BUCC came away from the meeting thinking "Can you believe that idiot finds the phrase 'hunting terrorists' offensive? I mean, hasn't he ever read a dictionary?" and said so in their publication.
10.2.2005 9:33pm
Salaryman (mail):
Frankly, seems like the 19 year olds at Bucknell may have had a better perspective on this whole thing than most of the commenters. If you'll follow the link in the update to this post, a BUCC member writes:

"I'd like to point out that the BUCC didn't make a "big deal" out of this. There was a short newsbrief in The Counterweight (periodic BUCC publication) about what happened and why we thought it was a bit ridiculous. That's it. It wasn't some huge ordeal that bogged down the entire Unversity."

I suppose his comment COULD be self serving and misleading, but unless the kid is flat out lying (which should be easy to prove), sounds like pretty much all that happened was that the BUCC came away from the meeting thinking "Can you believe that idiot finds the phrase 'hunting terrorists' offensive? I mean, hasn't he ever read a dictionary?" and said so in their publication.
10.2.2005 9:33pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
I think it's important in this discussion to make clear what is meant by the word "terrorist".

There is an unfortunate tendency on some sites I have visited to extend this definition to include generalized slurs aimed at Islamic culture in general. I have a high regard for Islamic culture, in particular the sufi tradition and I would agree with some posters in here that it is indeed a high civilization and has a lot it can teach the West. This became clear to me recently when I watched a series of debates courtesy of BBC World - part of the "Hard Talk" series from Qatar. The debates highlighted the sharp division between more hard line, fundamentalist positions and pro-western speakers who are looking for some kind of synthesis between Islamic and Western values.

In this case we are referring to the Taliban, and to fighters with a very hard nosed and fundamentalist view of Islam. The theocratic society that existed in pre-invasion Afghanistan featured a medieval style of justice and the imposition of archaic codes, along of course with the suppression of the rights of women.

This struggle incidently is not one that I see as being "us against them" at all. Many Muslims are vehemently opposed to the Taliban view, and see it in fact as regressive and a direct threat to Islam itself.

If I have any problem at all with "hunting terrorists" it is not with the literal meaning of the term within the context to which it refers, but rather it would be with those who take a triumphalist view and exploit the term as propaganda. However taken strictly within the context of this speech, it seems plain enough, and certainly the conservative students at Bucknell had the right to frame the advertisement as they saw fit.

These reflections are after the fact. Some comments in here have actually helped me to see the other side of this issue, and I can see how this term could in fact appear exclusionary and triumphalist ... but this certainly isn't the way I read it.
10.2.2005 10:24pm
Buck Turgidson (mail):
I think it's important in this discussion to make clear what is meant by the word "terrorist".

There is an unfortunate tendency on some sites I have visited to extend this definition to include generalized slurs aimed at Islamic culture in general.


Huh?

Aidan, you're tilting at windmills. This is so far from the issue in question as to be meaningless. There are several things that might have been offensive to some, but your harangue is entirely unnecessary. One possibility was the objection to "hunting" in reference to human beings. Personally, I find this objection pointless. First, as has been pointed out earlier, the use of "hunting" in this context is not uncommon. Second, there is some question as to the fact that we should view "terrorists" in the same light as ordinary human beings.

The second version of the objection might have arisen in response to careless promotion of "hunting terrorists at Bucknell". I find this to be on more solid ground, since the talk had nothing to do with Bucknell and the phrasing was clearly either sloppy or intentionally vague (or intentionally stupid, for that matter--not beyond possibility for this organization). BUCC might have justified the header in two ways--1) it is meant to be shorthand, not complete and accurate description, and 2) the message went out to people outside of Bucknell so it was necessary to identify the location. I find (1) unpersuasive--the argument makes more sense for phone messaging or telegraph, where each character and word is at a premium. No such premium exists in venues where BUCC wanted to publicize the talk. In case of (2), it is simply ungrammatical and the offensive interpretation is actually the preferred one in the way it was phrased.

Still, the administration had a chance to have gone overboard on the issue. They could have called the group on the carpet and threatened them with some imaginary but unimaginative punishment. They did not. The groupies admitted that "it was no big deal". The administration did not think it was a big deal, in the long run. They simply wanted to educate the bunch on clarity of expression--something I often want to do to undergrads when teaching.

It is the finge elements--I would even call them provocateurs--that decided to blow this case out of proportion. You are introducing a level of complexity to the issue that was never there and need not be there. Period. So you're taking something that is already unnecessarily complicated by non-participants and introducing another level of complexity. Stop! You are wasting time and effort.
10.2.2005 11:18pm
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
Buck I disagree. Just came from a chat site where the issues I raised were being discussed in the context of this Bucknell debate. But I'm pressed for time here so have to abandon the thread.
10.2.2005 11:41pm
Gene Vilensky (mail) (www):
Imagine the following ad:


Come listen to famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal speak about his experiences bringing Nazis to justice.


Would anyone object to the use of "Nazi hunter"? Obviously no, and no one should. But the fact that the president of Bucknell objected to "hunting terrorists" sort of indicates something about his world-view (or the world-view of the people he is playing to).

I agree that more often than not, University administrators are idiots rather than ideologues. And they want the least confrontation possible. If that means having to satisfy a kumbaya constituency that will whine, "terrorists have feelings too," then regardless of the administrator's politics, he will in fact oblige.

But the larger point isn't that the pres of Bucknell is necessarily the next Ward Churchill or what have you. Rather, it is that he/his office is willing to lecture students about the possible offensiveness of "hunting terrorists" to save his skin from criticism by the PC patrol. That he is willing to quash the speech of some for the benefit of others is the problem here.
10.2.2005 11:57pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
ElliottG: The issue is civility and College Republicans sorely lack it in many instances.

College Students sorely lack it in many instances; surely you don't think there's something special about Republicans that make them less civil.

That having been said, I must add "Huh?" Where is there "incivility" here? Why on earth would anybody be "offended" at the idea of hunting terrorists, even if "hunting" were limited to tracking down and shooting them, which, as AnonyMouse points out, it is not?

Buck: The second version of the objection might have arisen in response to careless promotion of "hunting terrorists at Bucknell."

To you I must also add a "huh?" That phrase is from our Volokh Conspirator's headline, not from the promotional email in question.
10.3.2005 12:52am
Buck Turgidson (mail):
Gene, just to reiterate my point, consider the invitation to start out,

Nazi Hunting at Bucknell

The natural question would have been, "Are there Nazis at Bucknell?" Or you can expand the question, "Are there Nazis at Bucknell that need to be hunted?" I don't believe that either interpretation is intended, but the language makes these interpretations warranted.

I am not convinced that the misdirection was not intentional. Some groups of this ilk seek controversy of precisely this kind (consider the "affirmative action bake sales"). But then they either have to admit that they are intentionally inflammatory and accept that there is really no controversy, or chicken out, maintain their ignorance and expose themselves to a lecture on clarity of language. Either way, there should not be a controversy. And if they really are ignorant rather than inflammatory, then they need someone with a brain to run the organization. I know it might be hard for conservatives at Bucknell, but they can't all be that illiterate, can they? I thought Bucknell was a fairly competitive school...
10.3.2005 1:27am
Reginald:
Buck,

I don't know what you're quoting, but it isn't the students that go on to criticize. There was no misdirection at all. You're quoting the title of this post as though it were the students' e-mail.

Nowhere in the e-mail did it say Hunting Terrorists at Bucknell, it said Where were you during the months following September 11? Major John Krenson was hunting terrorists. Big difference if you're talking about inflammatory language!

You're swinging at straw men...!
10.3.2005 1:42am
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
I hadn't time to comment when I was last in here, but one of the reasons I refrained from replying to Buck's convoluted rant was his obvious confusion about terms used.

Abdul's remarks are simply beneath contempt. He doesn't debate, he just resorts to satire and insult. I could respect that if he had the guts to use his own name.
10.4.2005 5:37am
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
In answer to Buck's comment that I was adding an "unecessary level of complexity" I will say this. A greater concern to myself and others than semantics, are the polarized positions that the debate has provoked (as witnessed by the antagonisms in the blogosphere).

I also have reservations about aspects of the Bush strategy abroad even though I see myself as being on the "right". I think it is important for oppposing camps to try and find some common ground, rather than personalize discussion to the point where an exchange of ideas becomes difficult, if not impossible.
10.4.2005 6:04am
Abdul:
Aidan writes: "He doesn't debate, he just resorts to satire and insult."

Satire is a debating technique. It illustrates the absurdity of a situation in a way that an audience can understand and remember better than a long-winded logical exegesis. It requires that the audience have a sense of humor, or else they will be offended. Know anybody like that, Aidan?

In discussing a free speech issue, and complaining first that whether one is offended is immaterial to the issue, then complaining that insulting remarks are beneath contempt and responding with an insult about the guts of a pseudnonymous poster, are you perhaps engaging in satire? Are are you just hypocritical?
10.5.2005 10:48am
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
Abdul -

A couple of points then I'm stepping off the thread permanently because I don't know you, have nothing against you personally and have no wish to get embroiled in an on-going one-on-one slug fest on an expiring thread. The last word is yours, if you care to give it.

First of all, I didn't begin by making personal remarks about you - dropping the word "wanker" and "loud mouth" etc. To my way of thinking this lowers the tone of discourse, and I try hard not to resort to name calling. You appeared to be offended by reference to Muslim countries without taking the trouble to find out if in fact this demonstrates some kind of red neck anti-Muslim attitude on my part.

I don't think you will argue with me that in many Muslim countries it can be hazardous to speak openly about touchy issues (non-Muslim countries too:include Russia/China in that); Zia laws in Pakistan, for example, reflect some of the biases that penalize women. I also realize that Islamic society has given some of the greatest gifts to civilized
society and that the punitive nature of some of the laws can't be taken as a measure of Islamic society as a whole.

As to your remarks and accusations :-

For satire to be cogent, it first needs to be related in an ironical way to the subject in question. Trying to make some "satirical" analogy between the term "hunting terrorists" and "aborting terrorist babies in order to reduce the terrorism rate" - demonstrates such an abrupt transition from the subject under discussion that it fails to hit the mark. Sure, I get what you are saying ... it just seems a little odd.

"Hunting terrorists" is used in mainstram media. It refers to TERRORISTS who are actively engaged in TERROR - not babies who might be. So the logical fallacy inherent in the comment renders it un-funny and a stretch, by any standards.

When I said that it matters not if this or that person is offended by public speech, when viewed in the light of higher speech protections - I wasn't referring to private comment between individuals. I think the latter should be goverened by a level of propriety and politeness, and I'm sure you would agree.

My comment about your pseudonym is valid. Even though sites can and do have on-line tracking abilities, there is still a lot of scope for people who come out in "disguise" to say things on here that they would never say in company with others. I run into this all the time in the blogosphere - and the people who stoop to personal insult the fastest are always the people who are using nicks and posting phoney urls.

We have discussed nothing substantive, so I really don't know what your views are. That's a pity, because if you are indeed Muslim, I would have been interested in exchanging opinion. It's a shame that discourse can get caught up in these snags, that always in my experience on-line, relate to some word said, some inference dropped that people begin to obsess upon to the exclusion of all else.

Okay that's my last word. I'll keep an eye on the thread for your response, if you choose to make one.

Cheers!
10.5.2005 3:30pm
okay_and (mail):
Game ,set and match to Aidan on class. How come they let you post in here anyways Abdul seeing that all your id is fraudulaent? I found this post via Google Blog Search. It's a new service and you can search the blogosphere by subject key. Anyone interested in this Bucknell debate can track a lot of comment from there.
Reginald said:"I'm sorry, but it is NOT OK for administrators to be dragging students into meetings to discuss protected speech. Sure, you might consider it a mere criticism, but would you feel the same if John Ashcroft started summoning people for half-hour meetings to discuss the posters they had at anti-war protests?" I agree. The same thing happend to another group in an arguement over abortion. The admin told them what they could and couldnt say. I don't think its the biz of the admin to be taking this on. If some group is promoting hate in a KKK manner then they should clamp down. but considersing that hunting terrorists can be gheard on CNN and other mainstream broadcasters, it seems kind of extreme to hype it to this degree. To my way of thinking this is a storm in a tea cup. AnonyMouse said: "Oh good grief! "Hunting" terrorists is such a commonly used term that it defies comprehension how one could object to it. Salon.com has used the term hunt for Bin Laden (or something very similar to it) in 221 different articles, the NY Times 435 times, the Washington Post 221 times." This covers what I said earlier. Don't admin people have something better to do like hit up corporate fat cats for cash? Making a huge deal over such things seems silly.
10.11.2005 12:06am
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
Steve here's hoping you check out this thread again.

I accidentally deleted your Bucknell email because it got into my spam filter, so that's why I didn't get back. Yes I did post on those sites but I'm using the (af) profile. Can you please send me the mailer info again if you still have it on file (plus list) - but to my regular email, not hotmail. By the way the account on your other addie is no good either, I tried it a couple of times and it bounced back.

Lol - check out Abdul's commentary :) Isn't "wanker" a Brit term?
10.11.2005 8:15am
Aidan Maconachy (mail):
Found your other one in my junk box. Sent back the info at 1 pm. Still regular addie though for me - not h mail. ty
10.11.2005 4:33pm