Why Don't They Just Sue Me?

Over the last few months, I've been documenting some of the lies my professors told to get me kicked out of university and even thrown in jail. In this blogpost I tell about how Professor Dave Bell lied. In this post you can read about how Mrs. Cantor admitted to lying about me in her letter to the Dean. In this post I tell about some of the lies told by Don Metz told, and in this post some more of his lies. Vice-President Neil Besner was caught lying on the witness stand here. And Professor Bush was caught in a web of lies here and here.

 

You might be wondering: how do I get away with this? Why don't they sue me for defamation? And why don't they get an injunction to shut down my website, like they did for that guy who was posting things about Sam Katz and the Jews? 

 

I don't think there's another website anywhere in the civilized world where a guy like me is running up and down the backs of all these university professors, and they're just sitting back and letting him get away with it. For example, there's that physics professor who got fired from the University of Ottawa, and then he wrote an article where he called another prof a "house negro" for U of Ottawa President Alan Rock. He's getting sued. Why not me?

 

I know what the haters are going to say. They'll say that I'm an insignificant worm who's not worth the attention, and the University doesn't need to give me any more publicity by dragging me to court. Maybe so. But that's no excuse for letting me slander them up and down the internet. I got over five thousand hits on this blogsite last month. That's gotta hurt. 

 

I say the reason they won't sue me is because they know I'm telling the truth, and they'll lose if they go to court. And as long as they keep quiet and let me get away with it, more and more people are going to believe my side of the story: that they are liars. Every day they don't sue me is one more day that they are admitting I am right. 

 

They've already spent over a hundred thousand dollars to try and prevent me from getting my case heard in court. Money is no object for them. If they had any sense of honor they would defend themselves against the charges I've made in this blogsite. The fact that they are afraid to do so speaks volumes about what really happened. 

What's Wrong with Teachers

One of the little incidents that I took a lot of flak for back in university was the day I stood up to ask if any of my classmates had as much trouble as I did in following the type of PowerPoint presentations which were popular with most of our profs. I was immediately howled down from all sides. It seems everyone was fine with the Prof just standing there and reading off the bullet points from his power point slides.

It turns out I'm not the only one who thinks there's something wrong with teaching by Powerpoint. Here's someone who posted a pretty good article on Slate Magazine in the form of a mock PowerPoint show. I think she makes some pretty good points.

I'm not saying this article proves I was right. I'm just saying it shows that this is the kind of thing people should be looking at when you're taking a course called Philosophy of Education. And I wonder why I was the only one out of fifty students who thought it was worth talking about?

And it's not like it wasn't even part of the curriculum. We had to memorize this little pyramid thing, which you see everywhere:

I think the way I asked the question was: where did other people think PowerPoint presentations should fit on this pyramid. Because for me they're pretty much off the scale. (You may remember one of the haters critcizing me for "putting other students on the spot"...this is the only possible thing she could have been talking about.)

Like I say, the point isn't whether I was right or wrong. The point is why aren't any other students asking this type of question? And why am I earmarked as a troublemaker because I'm the kind of guy who does?

POSTSCRIPT: The haters, who have been consistently claiming to not remember any specifics...even claiming that their  "general impression" have more credibility than any "factual details"... have jumped back in the fray with a vengeance, suddenly claiming to remember long-repressed particulars of my outrageous conduct.  Now they're playing the "rudeness" card. They would have more credibility if it weren't for Mrs. Cantor's testimony at my criminal trial, where she admitted that her original charges of outrageous rudeness were based on nothing more than the hysterical reaction of a few girls in the class to my perfectly polite and respectful behavior. Not to mention that these newly-graduated professional teachers who hold themselves up as arbiters of proper conduct can't resist calling me "prick" and "asshole" and much worse, all the while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.

It's Not Their Fault

Last week I posted a little story about my first encounter with Arlene Skull, the principal of Gordon Bell, whose complaint to the University got me kicked out of my practicum after only six days in the classroom. I didn’t tell you what she said about me; I just told a pretty innocent story which might have made Mrs. Skull come off as a bit humorless. I’m guessing that angle might have rung true with some of her colleagues. But that’s just a wild guess.

A reader posted a comment which got us into the field of psychology. One thing led to another, and I more or less proposed that with respect to my fight with the University, the battle lines have been drawn pretty much according to personality types: the majority, who are going to stand on the side of the system, and the minority who are going to support the rebel. The facts of the case aren’t all that big a factor.

This prompted a fairly detailed response from a poster, who clearly identified with the authoritarian camp. In general, it’s not all that rewarding for me to argue with these people, but this woman said something so priceless that I can’t let it go without comment. You can read her entire comment if you back up one blogpost, but here’s the good part:

“…Whatever your opinion of your actions and your posts may be, the general consensus is that you are wrong. You rejected the hands offered to you, rejected the reality of your own flaws and problems, and set off on a self-righteous quest for what you believe you deserve. On the way, the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality as well, but they don't negate your mistakes and flaws.”

What is most interesting about this little passage is how true to form she runs as an authoritarian. Like all the other haters, this one has no idea why I got kicked out of university, nor does she care. She knows I’m guilty. How does she know? Because “the general consensus is that you are wrong.”  And she is genuinely baffled as to how I can be so blind as to persist in believing that I’m right in the face of the opinion of the majority.

Then she said something about how I "rejected the hand" that was extended to me. She must mean the time I wouldn’t sit down for coffee with the professors, as though this illustrates some flaw in my character. Well, if being a hard-ass is a character flaw, color me guilty. The professors knew exactly where I stood: if they had any complaints about my conduct, this was a serious matter and I wasn't about to discuss it over coffee. I wanted to see it in writing. When I told this to Professor Bell, he backed right down, and said in that case he would just let the matter drop. Of course, he was lying. He didn’t let it drop…he went straight to the Dean. 

But the real kicker is her conclusion: that on the way, “the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”….but that doesn’t matter because those “errors” don’t negate my own “mistakes and flaws”.

She’s not very clear on just what were my “mistakes and flaws” other than not going for coffee with Professor Bell. I didn’t know you could get kicked out of school for that. But she’s pretty quick forgive the University for its…what did she call it….errors of morality?

She has no idea what I supposedly did that was wrong, but if she’s been reading this blog, she must have some idea what “moral errors” the university committed. In case her memory needs refreshing, here is a partial list, compiled from incidents I’ve reported elsewhere on this site:

1. Professor Bush gave me an F on a term paper, which I appealed. The Departmental Committee under Professor Appell ratified the F, saying it was deserved. But they didn’t bother to mention the fact that they never read the term paper! When I got this admission out of them, Professor Moulaison (the head of the Senate Appeals Committee) promptly canceled my appeal in midstream.

2. Professor Cantor asked us to write a confidential essay about our personal belief systems. When I wrote something critical of another prof, she went to the Dean and told him about it.

3. Professor Metz and Professor Bush lied about me of trying to force my way into the Bush residence. As a result, I was charged with forcible entry. At the same time, I sued Bush for defamation. At the civil trial, Metz and Bush swore they never accused me of home invasion. But then at the criminal trial, when confronted with incriminating emails, they had to admit that they did.

4. In spite of their lies, the University is still backing Metz and Bush to the hilt, paying top bucks for Bush’s lawyers. Their latest move is to try and get those incriminating emails from the criminal trial excluded from the civil trial.

5. Professor Cantor sent a letter to the Dean accusing me of insulting a classroom guest, even though she now admits she personally didn’t believe I had done anything wrong. The Registrar used this as a key point to get me kicked out of school. Mrs. Cantor knows what happened to me, but she still hasn't gone back to the Dean or to Lloyd Axworthy to set the record straight.

This is only a partial list of the things I’ll prove against the university once my case goes to trial. I don’t know about you, but by comparison, I think my crime of “not going for coffee with Professor Bell” seems pretty insignificant.

But that’s not how the haters see it: in fact, Miss Authoritarian has a justification for the University’s “moral errors”. Did you notice it? It’s just a little mind-boggling, if you think about it. I’m not making this up…here’s what she actually said: that along the way, they were “drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”.

Interesting use of what’s called the “passive voice”. They didn’t make errors…they were drawn to make errors. By whom were they drawn? I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that she’s thinking of yours truly. In other words, the University isn’t to blame for all those lies and slanders. It was my fault. They’re just innocent victims of my trickery.

UPDATE: Mr. Authoritarian has come back with a long list of reasons he says justify the University kicking me out of school, mostly based on things I did to defend myself after they already kicked me out. But if you read them over carefully you'll see he hasn't got one single thing I actually did in class while I was a student.