The Lies of Colby: New Spartacus? McAdams...

[Magda Hassan]

I believe this is Marquette's version of events. His termination letter.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ...edit?pli=1

[Peter Lemkin]

A bit of an aside, but several times I've seen people post on suspected McAdams doing posts on Forums re: JFK using a false name. Can anyone substantiate this?

[Albert Doyle]

Geesh. Looking at this, what I'm seeing is McAdams was grossly in violation of University codes of conduct for faculty. However the issue was a fair and open one for debate and one involving free speech issues. I think Marquette is using words like "inclusive", "holistic", and "civility" in a somewhat subjective and arbitrary way. That's a judgment call by Marquette but once you get to the hardball level of public remonstration and defenestration you then incur greater Constitutional terms that require inquiry into whether McAdams was roughly handled and his rights were violated. I think we all agree that McAdams' problem was the accumulative result of his thinking his fame from assassination denial had made him a sort of right-wing radio talk show personality who kind of forgot where he was, never the less there are still free speech issues here that can't be ignored. Especially at the "tolerant" academic level Marquette claims to espouse. I'm not sure I don't see Marquette trying to convert some of its own liabilities into blaming McAdams for expressing them, or better yet, how he expressed them. Perhaps this is bad conduct by both sides. Universities should always err on the side of free speech no matter how difficult that is with someone like McAdams.

[Magda Hassan]

I'm not sure I don't see Marquette trying to convert some of its own liabilities into blaming McAdams for expressing them, or better yet, how he expressed them. Perhaps this is bad conduct by both sides. Universities should always err on the side of free speech no matter how difficult that is with someone like McAdams.

I think, and so does Jim D, that is why the graduate student teacher will have a good case for suing both of them.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I will be talking about this on Len's show this week.

Albert, again, you leave out some very important points.

McAdams was the kid's academic advisor. Which is what I suspected all along.

Second, the student lied about taping the conversation--twice. To the professor and to the administration.

Third, the student was flunking the class. And he then used the incident to try and get out of the class and into another one so he could start over. When the administrator asked if that was the reason he was there, he said, "I am insulted you should ask such a thing." Yeah sure.

Fourth, that is an importent part of the story. Why? Because although McAdams named Abbate, he did not name the student. Why? Probably because any faculty member who had the kid could look up his record and reveal he was flunking the class--and this was at least partly his motive for doing what he did. McAdams did not want his readers to know that.

Fifth, unlike what McAdams said, Abbate did revisit the issue in the next class. As I suspected, the kid was one of McAdams' RW acolytes. His real objective was to bring up the whole issue of gay spouses adoption rights. And he wanted to use a very dubious study that has since been completely discredited. As Abbate said, that was not part of what she was talking about.

Sixth, although the kid said he was going to stick the class out, he did not. He dropped it before he got an F.

Seventh, McAdams emailed Abbate on a SUNDAY to get her reply. Geez John, don't you know that on that day, people of Catholic persuasion go to church and spend the afternoons with their friends and families. When she did not reply by sundown, he printed the story with all attendant errors--lies--if you ask me.

Eighth, because of these lies and distortions, she became a target of hate mail and threats and requests to commit suicide. Not just via e mail, but in her campus mailbox.

Ninth, it got so bad, that--like James Meredith at Ole Miss--the university had to station a security guard outside her class door.

Tenth, McAdams felt no remorse for the mental anguish he caused, or the physical danger she was in. In fact, it was the opposite. He gloated about ruining her career at Marquette, and perhaps elsewhere.

I find it very odd that you want to forcibly shut up DVP, but you think the above is OK. Don't you?

Let me add two more points:

1.) If Abbate had stayed there and she had been attacked by one of McAdams' blackshirts, do you realize the lawsuit Marqueette would have faced? Because Holz admits he has a history of doing this stuff.

2.) If they had done nothing, this would have made McAdams de facto president of the college. In other words, he was running things. As informed by his minions there, he would then terrorize other instructors who were not as rightwing as he was. Holz alludes to that in this letter, namely that other faculty members expressed fears that they would be on his hit list. McAdams would have been a RW Robespierre.

If I hear this first amendment plea one more time I will vomit.

Any freshman student in poly sci understands a simple fact about the first amendment: your freedom of expression ends at the beginning of your neighbor's nose. You have no right to intimidate, terrorize, slander and set up for physical abuse your neighbor or colleague.

That is what McAdams did.

[Magda Hassan]

A bit of an aside, but several times I've seen people post on suspected McAdams doing posts on Forums re: JFK using a false name. Can anyone substantiate this?

I've heard this too. It is quite possible but difficult to prove. But not impossible. Also knowing he has form in impersonating others as when he went to COPA using an alias it makes it easier to think it he would do the same on line as well.

[Peter Lemkin]

A bit of an aside, but several times I've seen people post on suspected McAdams doing posts on Forums re: JFK using a false name. Can anyone substantiate this?

I've heard this too. It is quite possible but difficult to prove. But not impossible. Also knowing he has form in impersonating others as when he went to COPA using an alias it makes it easier to think it he would do the same on line as well.

I didn't know he did that at COPA - so did Burt Rutan - no doubt many others - but I met Rutan then and when he gave me his contact information, as we lived near one another, he gave another name...and one I immediately recognized. I had been to his home several times, where we discussed many things - including Gordon Novel (a somewhat regular visitor to BR's home). There is much more to the BR story, but it is a digression here, and as he is working with the Military and Intelligence, I hesitate to say much more at this time. Funny how people 'investigating' truth often lie to those others investigating truth.....

[David Guyatt]

I've arrived late to this discussion. I just happened to see the name "Colby" and clicked the link.

Many years ago now I spent some good money and time tracking Len's personal and family background (to see who he really was) -- and focused mostly on his god awful father who was an important and influential apologist scientist for the tobacco industry -- Frank Gerhardt Colby worked for R J Reynolds 1969-75, and then moved over to Jacob Medinger & Finnegan, the tobacco law firm, as Chief Scientist in 1983. His professional life was about shooting down in flames anyone or anybody in a position to connect cancer to tobacco smoking. He was good at it too, I think.

Being a completely nasty, lying, irresponsible bastard proved to be a very lucrative experience - with a Park Avenue address and invites to the Augusta National (Masters) golf championship.

I tracked Frank G back to his post WWII German roots -- and much more besides. I think it possible that the name "Colby", may be an Americanization of the German name -- "Kolbe", but this is largely guesswork (because of the Swiss connection and probably fanciful thoughts of Allen Dulles residency and the Boy in Brazil, Len). I tracked Frank G to Switzerland for the war years until 1944 and thence to Cuba before entering the US (the potted history he told a journalist). But to perfectly honest, so much didn't check out back in those war days, it was an impossible task to verify it all. Frank G's ridiculous claim that his father Fritz married the Jewish heiress Paula Oppenheimer is easily dismissed as completely untrue by the briefest of checks on the Oppenheimer family ancestry. But it speaks volumes about the guy's relationship to truth and honesty.

But for me this foolish exaggeration also explains Len's tortured and deceitful nature - it's an inferiority complex in action. Like father like son is my view.

In the end I came away from my researchers feeling, well, a little tarnished to be honest. Yes, Len's nasty, yes he's deceitful and yes he's vindictive and petty, I felt. And no, he doesn't discriminate between truth and falsehood - these are moral and ethical voids beyond his ability to grasp imo; the absence of a paternal moral compass doesn't help either - and no, he's never going to change, either, I think. He's locked in his bloodline and just can't bust out.

It's sad really.

Why John Simin continues to let Len ply his trade over there raises a big question in my mind about Simkin's own ethical/moral compass (or should it be turpitude?), imo.

But in the last analysis, I have to thank Len and Simkin. Were it not for them (and a couple of others also), Deep Politics Forum would never have been. It was only due to what we founders of the DPF felt to be the continuous, objectionable one sidedness of the Education Forum's balance, trustworthiness and pursuit of truth that we birthed this forum and all moved, lock, stock and barrel over here.

I'll butt out now.

[Jim DiEugenio]

That was great work by you Dave.

Someone else informed me of this crucial information you unearthed.

I could not understand why the guy was so bonkers.

[Albert Doyle]

I
Tenth, McAdams felt no remorse for the mental anguish he caused, or the physical danger she was in. In fact, it was the opposite. He gloated about ruining her career at Marquette, and perhaps elsewhere.

I find it very odd that you want to forcibly shut up DVP, but you think the above is OK. Don't you?

Let me add two more points:

1.) If Abbate had stayed there and she had been attacked by one of McAdams' blackshirts, do you realize the lawsuit Marqueette would have faced? Because Holz admits he has a history of doing this stuff.

2.) If they had done nothing, this would have made McAdams de facto president of the college. In other words, he was running things. As informed by his minions there, he would then terrorize other instructors who were not as rightwing as he was. Holz alludes to that in this letter, namely that other faculty members expressed fears that they would be on his hit list. McAdams would have been a RW Robespierre.

If I hear this first amendment plea one more time I will vomit.

Any freshman student in poly sci understands a simple fact about the first amendment: your freedom of expression ends at the beginning of your neighbor's nose. You have no right to intimidate, terrorize, slander and set up for physical abuse your neighbor or colleague.

That is what McAdams did.

I guess my points are mostly theoretical since McAdams sort of became the Fetzer of Marquette and kind of brought it on himself. If you read the Marquette letter he's being fired mostly because he ran roughshod across faculty policy and codes of conduct.

I'm always wary of anyone who dismisses 1st Amendment rights because it is greasing the edge of the slippery slope that all of us face. That's why defense of possible violations of any free speech rights McAdams might have is in all of our interests.

Believe it or not, while the offenses you cite are pretty severe they are still subjectively interpreted and, believe it or not, secondary to free speech rights. The student may have had all those negatives and possible motives, but you can't deny him any possible honest free speech feelings he may have had. It's sort of a "Your right to accuse ends at the nose of his legitimate beliefs" kind of thing. You might think you've made a good case against his motives but you can't completely assume that to the point where you deny him any possible earnest beliefs. So even if McAdams and the student acted inappropriately, they still have a right to their earnest beliefs and therefore a right to express them freely. Especially in an academic setting.

I think what set off McAdams is he saw what every conservative fears. He saw Ms Abbate declare firm "Homophobic" rule and deny any discussion. Being an assassination denial blowhard, he then went into full FOX News mode in order to exploit the opportunity - operating in his usual mode. He blurred the lines between internet informality and the temptation to utilize the power of the internet against a perceived political enemy. Did he go too far? Probably. However, the reason I make these points is because, after reading the Marquette letter, even with McAdams' bad behavior, there is still a free speech issue at the core of all this that, even with McAdams' offenses, was genuinely kept as the focus of the event. What Marquette keeps safely out of view in its letter is that Ms Abbate did declare Homophobic rule in her class and forbade discussion. When she did that she fairly made herself open to academic challenge and, no matter how much you might disagree, McAdams had a fair right to do so. As much as I hate to be a defender of assassination denier McAdams he's right on that one and I would be forced to rule in his favor if I were judging it. lol - I'm sure if Charles were still here he'd be saying I warned you about him. But, no, I'm just as happy as anyone to see Kennedy assassination disinformationist McAdams censured and de-jobbed. I think the issue we are talking about is Marquette should have just stated that McAdams was fired because of conduct violations instead of mixing it with the topic. However if they do that then they are opening themselves to a suit by McAdams that his free speech rights on a particular issue were violated by the university. Free speech is like a lifeboat we are all in together. Poke holes in it and we all go down.


The difference between this and Von Pein is that Von Pein is a person who can be specifically isolated as not arguing honestly. Debates might be sanctuaries of free speech but they also have rules. Debates also have a purpose and are conducted in order to reach a conclusion that involves some kind of judgment. Some genuine debates might honestly be argued to a stalemate by honestly-arguing opponents. This, however, is not the case with Von Pein and the Kennedy assassination. Von Pein's offense is that he doesn't respond to, honor, or recognize reasonable legitimate points and evidence. David Josephs touched on it in his entries. The best example of this were your own exchanges with Von Pein. In each and every instance Von Pein ignored the level of reasonable evidence and conclusions you had offered in order to intentionally regress to moot assassination denial rhetoric. What Von Pein does is ignore the opposition's offering in order to return to a disingenuous, prescripted text of Warren Report apology designed to pre-empt that progress that has been acheived by conspiracy advocates. What theorists like Stephen Roy ignore is that Von Pein has violated the codes of honest debate by doing that and shouldn't be allowed to. Von Pein's methodolgy is like a carnival barker with a pro-WCR tent calling people in to see his show. That's a wholly dishonest method that ignores and violates the idea and purpose of the highest forums of such debate. Von Pein might elect to practice such form but eventually he has to be held accountable for it. His defenders somehow skip that phase when defending his rights. May I remind you that your asking on the EF why Von Pein was still allowed on the board was the impetus for your own removal by the misguided Mr Simkin. You were basically ousted by the same logic Marquette ousted McAdams for. Surely input comes before right as has been proven by the rejection of some other assassination characters from both boards. In my opinion, a person who refuses to argue honestly as a matter of practice, as Mr Von Pein exhibits, is not one whose free speech right should either be honored or tolerated. He's clearly a propagandist against the facts as his majority input, even if he does offer corrections in some instances. Those corrections don't save him nor do they alter the overall picture. What rights do defenders/deniers of back-shooting CIA cowardice and treason really have? People are losing the focus here. This isn't some pretty parlor game, it's a fight for the truth over the bloody slaughter of a good president.


.