"he simply worded his case very poorly"Why is he teaching at "Ha-vahd" if he can't even write a damn case decently?He should lose his job for being a hack and a serial rape apologist.
Interesting, if that's what it means, but doesn't "If you're going to take the money, you damn well better make it anonymous." suggest that you know who the money is coming from, but are putting it in a category of "anonymous", to keep the source secret from the unknowing public? I mean, if it was an anonymous donation in the sense that you, the institution, didn't know who it was coming from, that would be one thing, but in that case the quoted line would have read differently: something like "If you took his money, it damn well better have been anonymous.", not "you damn well better make it anonymous."
This is quite clearly a SLAPP suit. I hope Massachusetts has an anti-SLAPP law since it will be applied since the federal court is sitting in diversity jurisdiction.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a great number of both terrible, unscrupulous people, as well as some incredible and productive people, populate Ivy League campuses. It’s ironic that he teaches ethics. But I don’t think that the prestige of teaching at an Ivy League school necessarily matches the teaching quality. Money is the biggest factor in those places.
I’m not familiar with his work outside of this Wonkette article, so I really couldn’t say if he qualifies as a serial rape apologist. I don’t really take his half-assed opinion to mean that. I think he may have simply been so deluded, and busy sniffing his own farts, that he glossed over the part where his own Epstein inclusion was a poor decision on his part, for the exactly the same reasons he thinks the headline was. Epstein even being mentioned was toxic and the audience to both his article as well as the “clickbate” headline were bound to be offended and more sensitive to implication, whether valid or not. Definitely a bonehead move, and his blind spot is massive. You are probably right about his tenure though.
Well, it actually has to work both ways; in order for the donor to receive no recognition, accolades or other PR value from the donation, both the public AND the institution have to not know the source.
Do they realize that they aren’t Ross and Rachel?
No, they are still stuck in High school mentality.
It's probably happened. People are weird creatures.
a face that even a mother (and such a mother) would be hard-pressed to love.
"he simply worded his case very poorly"Why is he teaching at "Ha-vahd" if he can't even write a damn case decently?He should lose his job for being a hack and a serial rape apologist.
Interesting, if that's what it means, but doesn't "If you're going to take the money, you damn well better make it anonymous." suggest that you know who the money is coming from, but are putting it in a category of "anonymous", to keep the source secret from the unknowing public? I mean, if it was an anonymous donation in the sense that you, the institution, didn't know who it was coming from, that would be one thing, but in that case the quoted line would have read differently: something like "If you took his money, it damn well better have been anonymous.", not "you damn well better make it anonymous."
Have the Kardshians tried this?
This is quite clearly a SLAPP suit. I hope Massachusetts has an anti-SLAPP law since it will be applied since the federal court is sitting in diversity jurisdiction.
They will now.
Maybe her facial expressions are more easily deciphered on her home planet?
OMG--yes.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a great number of both terrible, unscrupulous people, as well as some incredible and productive people, populate Ivy League campuses. It’s ironic that he teaches ethics. But I don’t think that the prestige of teaching at an Ivy League school necessarily matches the teaching quality. Money is the biggest factor in those places.
I’m not familiar with his work outside of this Wonkette article, so I really couldn’t say if he qualifies as a serial rape apologist. I don’t really take his half-assed opinion to mean that. I think he may have simply been so deluded, and busy sniffing his own farts, that he glossed over the part where his own Epstein inclusion was a poor decision on his part, for the exactly the same reasons he thinks the headline was. Epstein even being mentioned was toxic and the audience to both his article as well as the “clickbate” headline were bound to be offended and more sensitive to implication, whether valid or not. Definitely a bonehead move, and his blind spot is massive. You are probably right about his tenure though.
I guess the moral here is, if you're going to defend taking money from a child molester, do it anonymously.
Seems ... unlikely.
Well, it actually has to work both ways; in order for the donor to receive no recognition, accolades or other PR value from the donation, both the public AND the institution have to not know the source.
Does anyone in Boston have a 16 ton weight handy?