Replies

I am not equivocating sir. I am not in disagreement with Mr. Schwartz. I am merely stating, without opening and refreshing some long ago healed wounds, he picked the wrong case in an attempt to firm up his argument. I'm not sure which one of these two brought up the Hallums case. I'm just letting you know that in this particular instance it was harassment, sexual and otherwise, in it's purest form.

I suppose we'll have to take your word for the harrassment chage Oneida. I'm sure a lot of this was covered in administrative proceedings and I can appreciate the fact that you may not be able to comment in detail.

OTOH you must see how easy it is to come to the conclusion that he was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and for those of us who only have newspaper accounts to go on it seems that the charges against him were pretty thin.

If you feel like you can fill in any details for us I urge you to do so. If you can't, we'll understand as well.

I am merely stating, without opening and refreshing some long ago healed wounds,he picked the wrong case in an attempt to firm up his argument.

Apparently these wounds you speak of were not deep enough to restrain you from coming out of your personal tragedy long enough to take another swing at Hallums, and without giving any substantive idea of what engendered such animosity.

I wonder what your assessment of General George Patton would have been? I have no doubt you and others found his behaviour objectionable. What I question is the distinctly feminine notion that people have a right to be comfortable, and the lack of said comfort is an actionable offense when it can be traced to a specific individual.

I find the canard "sometimes words hurt like a fist" to be specious. Fists hurt like fists, and the only way to conflate words and fists is with a breathtaking exercise of petulance and vanity. Thus far, my fourty years of experience with this type of vanity has come exclusively from women.

You're missing an essential point - the ability of feral femhogs to make general charges - insubstantiated by evidence, not subject to rebuttal and cross-exanination by the accused - and take down a man they don't like. The pernicious idea that "women don't lie about these things" is laughable. Bring out specific charges, and we'll have orderly procedures of adjudication. Anita Hill sought to "strike from cover" in her attacks on Mr. Justice Thomas - when she was forced to be specific, she became a subjrct of humor and well-eservd scorn. If you think you can get away with what you've attempted - general character assassination, no specifics - you've mistaken about where you are. Try again.