Replies

Okay, back to the post...

“How do you see email ? a page printed on anyones computer ?”

One of the keys to e-mail is the header information, which can be checked out by experts to see if it’s real or made up. There are ways to find that out. And it can be seen if it was received by the institution or not. There are markings that will indicate if the servers at the institution received this or not and they are unique to each e-mail. That’s why the header information must be intact.

You don’t want evidence — you ( and I ) would like to see the original wording -— but it appears the prof is keeping it under wraps, doing what he can to keep it anonymous”

Oh, but I do want evidence, all right. It might only be 1/2 of the evidence, since two items will be wiped out (one IP number and one e-mail address), but I would also insist on having the evidence of a sending server and a receiving server. That’s evidence all right.

In addition to that, yes the wording...

Regards,
Star Traveler

By the way, in reference to further information and anyone supplying the text or more info from the e-mail — I don’t think this is going to happen (from the source)...

At this point, it seems that this whole thing is stuck at nowhere. I can’t see any more information coming out. I mean, there’s actually no need for that to happen.

Why?

Well, basically because the original purpose was completed, which was to get that one “news” piece out, which was picked up by the New York Times and Fox News and now is in Lexis/Nexis database for posterity — whether it’s true or not. It will be *referenced* as true.

So, what’s the incentive for anyone to supply any more information. They’ve got their “documented” information. That’s how this kind of stuff works, actually, the MSM. You get the information out, false or not. It gets “documented” and databased in permanent database files. Someone else doing future research has the “reference” now — and the whole thing becomes “truth” — whether it’s true or not.

So, probably not too much more will be able to be said about it. You see, any more “information” that is supplied by the source, at this point in time will only serve to raise questions.

It’s already been accepted by the MSM, so they *stop* and it’s the “end of the story*. That’s it, goal accomplished....

I doubt we’ll ever hear another peep out of this source — ever again..., the original goal has been accomplished.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Well, ole RS and me were writing a bit “over on the side” (in FReep mail) and this came up...

RS — “Now you must think I’m really gullible -— you expect me to believe that you are such a fool that you went though all of this and did NOT do a search to see if the person who started this was connected to (ferinstance) any Muslim support groups ?”
“
Star Traveler — Well, no I didn’t. I was only discussing from the theoretical standpoints, that’s all. And, really, in a university setting, they’re high on “diversity” anyway. So, the mindset is to pump up minorities or others who they view as oppressed or unfairly treated. And Muslims really fit into that category on university campuses. The way I see it, is that a liberal professor, with a “diversity” mindset (all very common) doesn’t need to be a Muslim in order to argue strongly on behalf of Muslims.

In other words, to me, it’s almost a *useless distinction* between “Muslim” and “University Professor”. It amounts to the same thing in my mind. So, what is there to prove?

So, if you understand that this is my thinking, then you’ll understand why there’s no interest or motive in doing that. However, it might be a good idea, since you mentioned it.”

And so, for whatever it’s worth, I put out that information.

I recall listening to Brigitte Gabriel (terrorized in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists as a child) and Walid Shoebat (former PLO terrorist), plus two other former Muslim terrorists (I think from Hamas or Hezbollah), and they go around to university campuses and speak about what the Muslims are really about and how steeped they are in Islamic terrorism. And they point out what Islamic terrorist are all about and what they intend to do.

They are very good in speaking all over (radio shows, TV interview, universities and churches). Last year I went to a church where Brigitte Gabriel spoke, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I had heard her many times on the radio, but it was nice to meet her in person. She’s a real firecracker of a speaker.

What they all say is that going onto a university campus to speak about what they know personally (all are from the Middle East and none are Israeli) about Islam and terrorism — is absolutely dangerous and life threatening at times. They are attacked and villified and denounced, although they give their own personal experiences, including three of them, who were in those very terrorist organizations themselves. They say, of all the places they go to speak, the university campuses are the most dangersous.

They’ve been cancelled out many times, they’ve had to have police escorts and even up on the podium, they’ve had to have police there in large numbers to prevent bodily harm. This doesn’t happen to them in other venues. It does on university campuses, though.

So, I would say that it’s a combination of the rampant liberalism that one finds there, plus the diversity idealogy that the culture seems to breed, plus the anti-Bush hatred that flows out of that culture, plus the professors, who seem to revel in their extremely liberal ideas and their support of diversity.

And the *one group* who seems to be the greatest beneficiary of this are the Islamic groups.

It’s so bad, it seems to me, that indeed, there does not seem to be *any distinction* between Muslim idealogy and a professors idealogy, as exemplified by the principles of liberalism and diversity and support for the “supposed” oppressed in the world.

And of course, it’s Bush who is “oppressing” those poor Muslims over there in the Middle East, isn’t it? And his “WOT” is obviously an “evil ploy” to control them...

Regards,
Star Traveler