ll. I am submitting the following as a response to your ridiculous accusations of plagiarism.
If you were as fair minded and concerned about the free exchange of ideas as you claim to be, you would "seriously entertain" the idea of posting it on the front page of umcp.org, where I am attacked. To relegate this defense to the 'feedback' section of this website would be an indefensibly cowardly move on your part. If you really want this to become a public issue, you'd play fair (though that hasn't been your strong suit thus far).
A DEFENSE OF 'FREEDOM FORUM'
I'll begin by defending the paragraph from my article that you call plagiarism. I deny that it is such, as should any rational person, for two reasons. First, the quotes I used and the order in which I used them are so very and plainly common that they do not amount to any "borrowing of ideas." Run a google search of any of the direct quotations I used--you'll find that the whole idea brought forth by my paragraph is so common in anti-Churchill commentary as to be public intellectual property. Put simply: everyone uses those quotes; they weren't Alexander's first and they aren't principally mine now. I dipped into the trough of Churchill's ludicrous ideas just as scores of commentators have done (and will continue to do until Churchill's diatribes are recognized as the tripe they really are). Moreover, the paragraphs themselves are not even very similar (read on). Second, I have backing me up in this judgment the opinion page staff of the Diamondback, the Editor-in-Chief of the Diamondback, a journalism professor with a law degree (again, name readily available upon request from the Diamondback staff) and two distinguished professors from the UMD history department, Drs. Eckstein and Rutenburg (see March 7's Diamondback):
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/07/422bd645153f5
In the opposite corner, accusing me of plagiarism, is one lonely UMD student and one totally anonymous English professor.
Who do you trust?
Furthermore, the paragraph written by Alexander and quoted on this website has been seriously and deceptively altered to make it resemble mine more closely. When all those inserted ellipses are removed, his paragraph and mine bear only marginal similarity (which is, again, attributable to the commonality of such criticisms). I was not wrong in my attribution of said quotes. Churchill used the very same phrase(s) in his review of Deborah Lipstadt's book as he did in his own book 'A Little Matter of Genocide.' The quotes appear in both works. I invite skeptical readers to do their own research. Read my article, read Alexander's, read Churchill's disgusting review of Deborah Lipstadt's book. Read Churchill's books if you can stomach them. You'll see. As to my "threats of violence": I wasn't aware that zealous ideology was so detrimental to one's sense of humor. I threatened to punch Churchill in the forehead (yes, the forehead) because, well, no one gets punched in the forehead. Choosing to read statements like these as serious threats isn't just oversensitive--it's dumb. Those who actually took offense at my "threats" would do well to trade back some of their zealotry for the sense of humor they lost in what must have been a long and arduous indoctrination process.
A final word. I greatly resent having to issue this defense at all. We all know perfectly well that this was never about plagiarism (coming as it does from campus radicals, and not from any journalistically reputable source). Had I cut, clipped, copied and pasted my way to a DEFENSE of Churchill's ideas instead of an attack on them, gods forbid, I would not be defending my name here today.
This website and its handlers care nothing for journalistic integrity, nor for the standards of quality and fair and accurate reporting (the typos and bad word choices on umcp.org speak volumes). My article was, after all written in defense of Churchill's First Amendment rights! I don't want the man silenced, and I said as much in the piece. He has a right to speak. We, however, have no obligation to listen.
What irks the blind ideologues at umcp.org is that I dared to mount an attack on Ward Churchill himself, scion of uber-left propaganda that he is. Simon Fitzgerald's attack on my intellectual integrity, couched as it is in the language of journalism, is nothing more than crude, ideologically-motivated libel.
True to my word, I want this to be an open debate. My name is Morgan Hubbard (Simon Fitzgerald never gave his...I had to go looking). My email address is mhubbard@umd.edu. It's all out on the table. I, zany capitalist democrat that I am, would actually like to foster equal discourse. Those interested in pursuing any real debate on this matter of plagiarism can contact me. Those interested only in slinging cowardly accusations, I presume, will continue to hide behind online aliases ('L. Information'? Come on), anonymous professors and outmoded ideologies.
Morgan Hubbard mhubbard@umd.edu
Paragraph With Ellipses And Without
<small>P
teenage bedwetting bedwetting pics pissing desperation bedwetting pants bedwetting adults teen bedwetting
big dick penis large penis support men with large penis huge penis photos www big penis com big black penis
pee wee baseball pissing golden shower girls pissing shitting sex i gotta pee pissing pussies
snoop dog hustler cartoon dog sex dog sex man dog sex dog anal sex dog style sex
toes fetish boy foot fetish foot fetish picture stocking foot fetish fetish foot foot fetish model
?|
?|
?|
extreme dildo extreme spanking extreme cunt extreme cumshots extreme hardcore porn extreme cunt
</small>