It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida Atlantic University Wants To Fire Professor Who Denies Sandy Hook Massacre

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
They profited through the massive donations poured into SH, and not to mention the wrongful death lawsuit the parents have levied on the school.


Sorry I have trouble connecting the words "donation" with "profit".


This whole incident in itself in the parents collaborating in the politicization of their child as well as the childs grandmother advocating for gun control using her grandchild's 'death' as a political tool. I suspect that the parents have no quarrels with that either.


I think you are stretching on this one. I don't see pictures of Noah all over that article and them dragging his name out for gun control. Though you may see it a different way.


I also want to point out that Noah was also the child who's photos were used during the peace rallies of the Peshawar massacre. His photos were blown up and attached to picket signs and plastered all over the place in Peshawar....will the parents also sue these people as well....or rather file harassment charges for the use of their childs photo


I don't know. I'm unfamiliar with this event.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jaws1975




Has it been proven that he harassed the parents, or is it just ok to fire this guy post haste because his un pc views are insensitive?


How about firing him because he's an idiot?
A tenured professor is expected to have a modicum of rational intelligence, this moran (sic) obviously fails in that requirement.

So this is not a free speech issue but a freedumb issue.
He's free to be as dumb as he wishes, he just needs to exercise his god given right to be stupid somewhere else.

K~



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

sorry to interject...(though late)...I completely agree that the guy probably crossed a line...but I always wondered...why people dont just...you know...prove the obvious against baseless accusations...and simply be done with it. Providing this simple proof would no doubt shut the guy up and get him off their backs. And maybe he would cool down even when faced with undeniable proof he asked. Everybody wins as I see it.

I realize parents shouldnt perhaps need to prove such things to a random lunatic...but what's the harm ? I realize it's an emotional subject for the parents and such accusations are hurtful at least...but isnt it best to fight it with truth rather then counter accusations ?

That also reminds me of the famous Sibrel/Aldrin case. Why not simply vet the truth and bury these lunatics ? I guess I'm just too simpleminded to understand. I always thought that proof of truth you represent is the best weapon against any attack of such nature.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

These parents didn't even have to react to this guy (idiot or not). They could have just let him rant and act a fool all on his own. But, instead, they decided to go on the offensive and write articles and call him out by name. That in itself was dumb on their part. Now they are complicit in this entire public affair.

It seems that they have used the death of their child to get their minute of fame, otherwise, I can't understand why they would keep putting themselves into the spotlight over something as trivial as a this.

I agree that there may be a literal difference between the terms "donations" and "profit", but that doesn't change the fact that they have reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars and significant press time over the death of their child.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Yea, parents not wanting the death of their very real child questioned as factual is a TOTALLY unreasonable concern a parent could have...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chickensalad

Yea, parents not wanting the death of their very real child questioned as factual is a TOTALLY unreasonable concern a parent could have...


Again, they could have just let the guy rant and act a fool all on his own. People say and do some pretty dumb sh**, that doesn't mean that you have to react to everything people say or do. What purpose does it actually serve to react to this other than to get a few more snippets of fame in the media...I'm guessing that the parents saw the potential for another payout from this guy down the road.

I truly, for the life of me, cannot fathom a reasonable explanation for why they felt compelled to react to a loon. Unless there is an ulterior motive such as a future lawsuit.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chickensalad

Yea, parents not wanting the death of their very real child questioned as factual is a TOTALLY unreasonable concern a parent could have...


K...you are a father if I'm not mistaken ? What would you do in such a hypotethical situation ? I know you are mostly not a supporter of conspiracy theories...wouldnt you want to kill it by printing out these 2 pieces of paper ? or would your reaction be similar to the parent's ?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chickensalad

Yea, parents not wanting the death of their very real child questioned as factual is a TOTALLY unreasonable concern a parent could have...


K...you are a father if I'm not mistaken ? What would you do in such a hypotethical situation ? I know you are mostly not a supporter of conspiracy theories...wouldnt you want to kill it by printing out these 2 pieces of paper ? or would your reaction be similar to the parent's ?


I would do whatever is required of me by law, but that's because I tend to be lazy and don't do things unless I have to. I'm also not a father.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chickensalad

Yea, parents not wanting the death of their very real child questioned as factual is a TOTALLY unreasonable concern a parent could have...

I truly, for the life of me, cannot fathom a reasonable explanation for why they felt compelled to react to a loon. Unless there is an ulterior motive such as a future lawsuit.


Wouldn't it be prudent to ask them in that case instead of speculating their intentions?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Why would I do that...So that I could get harassment charges filed against me too...no thanks.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

You think so? Looks like various media outlets have figured out how to do it with having charges brought against them.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now that I read one of the links in the article I completely agree with him being fired.



FAU Academic Affairs Faculty Handbook clearly states that “A faculty member's activities which fall outside the scope of employment shall constitute misconduct only if such activities adversely affect the legitimate interests of the University,”

In an April 2013 Huffington Post article, Heather Coltman, interim dean of the College of Arts and Letters, clearly states that “Tracy's earlier posting has resulted in a number of negative consequences for FAU, including a large number of parents who withdrew their children's applications to FAU, a student whose parent asked that she be withdrawn from his class and a donor who withdrew his support to the Department of History.”



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That kind of proves my point about their intentions. They have no problem talking to the press and writing pieces for papers that directly tie themselves to this fiasco, but are unwilling to answer any questions that this professor is asking.

This whole thing could have been settled privately between the two parties,(or even ignored all together) but yet, they would rather file charges of harassment and attack the guy via the media. It just all seems as though they are trying to sway public opinion in their favor in order for a future lawsuit.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yea, that was the point I was drawing earlier in the thread. His prior history with this issue compounded this issue and the university decided to get rid of him to avoid further headaches and bad publicity.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That kind of proves my point about their intentions. They have no problem talking to the press and writing pieces for papers that directly tie themselves to this fiasco, but are unwilling to answer any questions that this professor is asking.


How is you asking them to explain their intentions the same as that above?


This whole thing could have been settled privately between the two parties,(or even ignored all together) but yet, they would rather file charges of harassment and attack the guy via the media. It just all seems as though they are trying to sway public opinion in their favor in order for a future lawsuit.


Maybe they are. It's not hard. This guy went after their dead 6 year old son. Appeal to emotion arguments work in this country.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Shamrock6




More proper thread title would be "FAU wants to fire professor who harassed parents of dead child."


Most proper thread title would be "FAU wants to fire professor who allegedly harassed parents of dead child."

I know you know better than that.


I'd go with "FAU wants to fire professor who parents of dead kid say harassed them." Alleged still carries an accusatory tone, but journalists like to overuse it to sound more intelligent than they really are.

If you wanna be semantical about it, anyway.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




That also reminds me of the famous Sibrel/Aldrin case. Why not simply vet the truth and bury these lunatics ? I guess I'm just too simpleminded to understand. I always thought that proof of truth you represent is the best weapon against any attack of such nature.


That's the way it should be unless there is something being hidden. The official story about Sandy Hook stinks to high heaven.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Here is an accurate title "FAU wants to fire professor who's employment there has repeatedly caused them problems".



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Klassified

sorry to interject...(though late)...I completely agree that the guy probably crossed a line...but I always wondered...why people dont just...you know...prove the obvious against baseless accusations...and simply be done with it. Providing this simple proof would no doubt shut the guy up and get him off their backs. And maybe he would cool down even when faced with undeniable proof he asked. Everybody wins as I see it.

I realize parents shouldnt perhaps need to prove such things to a random lunatic...but what's the harm ? I realize it's an emotional subject for the parents and such accusations are hurtful at least...but isnt it best to fight it with truth rather then counter accusations ?

That also reminds me of the famous Sibrel/Aldrin case. Why not simply vet the truth and bury these lunatics ? I guess I'm just too simpleminded to understand. I always thought that proof of truth you represent is the best weapon against any attack of such nature.

I would be inclined to agree with you, except for one problem. No evidence or "proof" is ever good enough for some people.


(post by Informer1958 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)





 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join