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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

ATTENTION!



This thread is going to be closed for a little while.

We would ask that all members refresh themselves on the ATS Policy about Sandy Hook, by reading this thread from the ATS owners:

**ALL MEMBERS Please read: Sandy Hook** UPDATED 01/21/2013

ATS has a very strict policy about Sandy Hook, and other horrible events like it.

Repeated violation of this policy can lead to having your account terminated.

Please take some time to read the thread.

This thread will be reopened in one hour.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Thread has been reopened.

Please remember what you have read in the link above.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
The Op Ed piece that got him fired was basically pumped up hyperbole. You can read it for yourself but you'll have to sign up - www.sun-sentinel.com... .html

Notice "taunts family victims" in the title.

To save you time I simply pulled out all the key descriptive words and phrases they are in order of appearance:
Harassment
Defamation
Tormentors - Love that one!
Persecute
Degenerates - (the rest of you Sandy Hook loons)
Sadistically torturing victim's families.
Wave of harassment, Intimidation, and criminal activity.
Pain and Anguish
Outrageous
Unsettling
Harassment
Persecution

Writing a single letter in response to a DMCA complaint somehow becomes an entire campaign to torment, persecute, defame and harass families and Tracy will lose his job over it, which by the way is teaching a class on Conspiracies.
Brave new world indeed.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Interesting how such an obvious event has been branded a Do Not Dispute topic universally



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals


Harassment
Defamation
Tormentors - Love that one!
Persecute
Degenerates - (the rest of you Sandy Hook loons)
Sadistically torturing victim's families.
Wave of harassment, Intimidation, and criminal activity.
Pain and Anguish
Outrageous
Unsettling
Harassment
Persecution


I'm sorry, but asking for proof that a dead child actually existed, is all of these things.

I don't much care how anybody tries to defend his behavior. Children died. Sending communications to the parents asking for PROOF that their child existed in the first place is morally reprehensible on every level.

Whether or not that's enough to remove his tenure isn't my decision to make, although IMO, anybody with the audacity to treat fellow human beings that way in a quest for 'truth' doesn't' deserve much of anything.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Copyright is a legal issue, not a personal one.
Last I checked sending a letter does not constitute harassment.
If there is defamation, harassment or slander then file suit - that's the legal recourse in such situations.
But then Pozner would have to PROVE he was being harassed or whatever which he had no case for - so he resorts to the bully pulpit of the Op Ed page to get Tracy fired.

Having Tracy fired would do nothing to stop him from writing or posting on the internet.
Btw, the HONR network isn't just about stopping Sandy Hook conspiracies, their self-proclaimed mission is to stop ALL conspiratorial posting on the internet.

Taking away a man's way of making a living is probably worse than anything you could say about another person.
One you can ignore, the other leaves you homeless.





edit on 19-12-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't disagree with you on the merit of the case and the firing.

I don't think one can get tenure removed either for reasons related to this. Again, there would have to be proof of harassment.

Now personally, I would consider it harassment the first time he sent the letter asking to prove the kid was ever alive to begin with. The law probably doesn't agree.

I'm just shocked that ANY person, regardless, would ever consider asking such questions of the parents involved. What happens to him will likely be the result of emotions as opposed to 'justice'.

At the end of the day though, he CHOSE to send that letter and involve himself with claiming children didn't die. That's on him.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't claim to know what happened at Sandy Hook.
But I cannot swallow the official story whole, there's just too many inconsistencies and contradictions and the state of Connecticut doing legal summersaults to prevent outside inquiry.
I have to agree asking for proof of your dead son is completely off the charts awful.
It is not however, illegal.
Insurance companies demand it I might add.

I remain steadfast insisting the public has a right to know more about what really happened.
In the absence of facts people will concoct every order of theories; some whacko, some reasonable, it's what thinking people do to fill the void.
The state of Connecticut is to blame for that.

The official report and all the media circus have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation and coherent timeline.
We still have no motive, conflicting reports on how Lanza died (cops said he shot himself in the back of the head, the coroner called his mortal wound "intraoral", the fact not a single bullet fragment could be positively matched to the rifle, the failure to allow EMS inside to attend the wounded, etc, etc. The list of unanswered questions could fill this page.

If we are to prevent or at least lessen the effects of such attacks in the future we need a fuller understanding, something the government and media have failed miserably to provide. I don't believe a single thing was learned from Sandy Hook that could help in any such future event.

That is a tragedy in it's own right.




edit on 19-12-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Sort of a big difference between an insurance company and some random jackass from the Internet.

Just sayin.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
To point out again that he wasn't fired for harrasment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am pretty sure all business models will fire an employee when they cost them money.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Indeed, and in an educational institution where people elect and then pay to be there, they would be within their rights (and arguably savvy) to consider monies they might have attracted in the future, but now won't.

Of course, that's impossible to calculate, but even if one student decides not attend, that's enough to argue potential negative impact.

Personally, I feel the college were fed up with his behaviour, perhaps he even brought it into work with him, in that he talked about his views, and they were happy to grab something concrete with which to be finally rid.

Certainly, eVen if you agree with him, his disinhibition in challenging bereaved parents in that way suggests a psychological mindset that the college have probably been dealing with for a while.



a reply to: Grimpachi


(post by CB328 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad




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

is this the kid?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join