Cambridge deletes discussion of its false claims, citing libel concernby Uriel Wittenberg (uw@urielw.com)January 13, 2006
On Dec 13, 2005, an unusual action occurred on Cambridge University's electronic forum. A discussion containing over 47 messages from various participants was deleted. The forum administrators posted an announcement stating:
This entire thread ["thread" is internet terminology for "discussion"] has been temporarily removed because there is believed to be a risk that some its content may be potentially libellous. This will be reviewed and a decision on whether to reinstate the thread will be taken by the GU Board. I had initiated the discussion, with a post addressing a substantive issue of ethical lapses at Cambridge. Many of the subsequent messages were unquestionably puerile, particularly those posted by anonymous participants. But I was unaware of "potentially libellous" content. I sent an inquiry to the indicated email address. The forum is run by the university's Graduate Union, and GU president Alex Broadbent replied. His reply supplemented the public explanation:
The thread has been suspended because there is a possibility that some of its content could be regarded as libellous, and because the topic does not fall within the scope of the purposes for which the forum is intended. When I questioned those "intended purposes" as a basis for deletion, Broadbent's further response merely said: "See http://www.gradunion.cam.ac.uk/forum/rules.html." That webpage is where the forum rules are laid out. The rules in fact provide no basis for deleting the entire discussion (nor any of my own posts). Shortly after the thread deletion, a very substantially revised forum policy was announced. Given the timing, it seems clear that my own posts were the impetus. In private correspondence, forum administrator Robert Whittaker has advised me that the statement in the deletion announcement above — "this matter should not be discussed in the forum" — referred not to the content of the deleted discussion, but to the act of deletion itself. Whittaker at first defended this by stating that forum rules prohibit discussing an instance of deletion. I pointed out they don't. He then stated: "It may not be explicity spelled out, but I think the 'Right of Reply' section makes it clear that individual moderation decisions should not be so discussed." (Despite Whittaker's view of the rules, there has been some discussion of the deletion in Changes to GU Forum Posting Policy, a later forum discussion, in which another forum administrator, Simon Hopkins, in an interchange with myself, offers some remarkable views as to how forum content should be controlled. That discussion, presumably reflecting the Cambridge community's reaction, and lack of reaction, to the significant policy changes, suggests that basic principles of democratic society like free speech, openness, and accountability are under-appreciated at Cambridge.) Since the "potentially libellous" rationale for deleting the forum discussion is false, I present here the text of the discussion, retrieved from my personal computer archives, so readers can see for themselves. Note that no formatting has been preserved in the reproduced discussion, so it's a bit messy. All the actual text has been retained, however. Note also that the timestamps of the various messages may not all be based on the same timezone.
False Claims by Cambridge — II(formerly at http://www.gradunion.cam.ac.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2922; deleted by forum administrators Dec. 13, 2005)
Author Message
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:40 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attended Cambridge's 3-week summer literature program this past August. Though I don't believe I had unrealistic expectations, I found the program quality deficient. I discussed certain issues with the summer schools director, Sarah Ormrod. But she appeared not to understand "quality" as a meaningful objective concept. (My personal account of the Cambridge experience includes a description of our meeting.) I later learned that the summer program may have misrepresented teachers' qualifications -- which obviously would be an ethical breach that Cambridge should deal with decisively. I say "may" because the evidence is not absolute. But it does give rise to very fair questions -- which the admin has refused to adequately address. I've written twice to both Dr. Kate Pretty, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Special Responsibilities), and Prof. Richard Taylor, Director of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. They have simply ignored me -- which frankly seems rude. I'm a student who enrolled in good faith -- and a customer who paid Cambridge just under 2000 GBP (for tuition, accommodations and food) for the 3-week program. I think I'm entitled to a bit more respect than these two university officers have shown. I'm now providing, below, the full correspondence relating to this concern. (I initially raised this matter in an earlier thread but I didn't want newcomers to have to wade through its 50 entries to reach this update.)
------------------------
Greetings. Could you please advise regarding several apparent omissions in
Thanks in advance,
Uriel Wittenberg
--------
If these people were once members of the Faculty, they are no longer.
--------
Dear Ms. Ormrod and Dr. Parker,
May I ask you to explain the response below from the Cambridge English
Regards,
Uriel
[Jen Pollard's message reproduced here.]
--------
Dear Mr Wittenberg
I have been investigating this matter. We make every effort to be
Sarah Ormrod
--------
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for the information.
The response from the English dept. seemed fairly categorical. I have to
Also, the three people I named weren't an exhaustive list of the anomalies.
Sincerely,
Uriel
--------
Dear Sarah,
Hello again. If you're declining to respond, could you please just confirm
Regards,
Uriel
--------
Message received.
--------
Dear Dr. Kate Pretty and Prof. Richard Taylor,
I was one of the students in the Cambridge English literature summer program
I then wrote to inquire of Sarah Ormrod, the Director of International
May I request your assistance in clarifying the situation?
Sincerely,
Uriel Wittenberg
[correspondence reproduced]
--------
Students studying towards a degree at Cambridge do not earn credit: the
I can confirm that all of the information in the brochure and the
Sarah Ormrod
--------
Sarah, it must be obvious to you that I am inquiring about apparent
I think you might therefore have foreseen that your latest response could
- What does "as 'reasonably up-to-date' as possible" mean?
- How could I be reassured to hear that "the advice [you] have been given"
- Are the "changes to records of which we were not aware" an acknowledgement
I think the right thing for you to do at this point is just what I requested
- Satisfy yourself of up-to-date information, which you are prepared to
- Respond openly to my inquiry by advising of all inaccuracies in the green
Additionally, if there is substantially inaccurate info, it would probably
Sincerely,
Uriel
--------
Dear Dr. Kate Pretty and Prof. Richard Taylor,
I've received no response to my message to you of a week ago.
Since writing to you, I did receive a further message from Sarah Ormrod. My
I would hope one of you could at this point respond to my query concerning
Sincerely,
Uriel Wittenberg
[correspondence reproduced]
Fk
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:15 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're disclosing some information which is supposed to be circulated among those of concern. Did you ask for their permission? I've read your previous ramblings. Poor Faculty of English!
Claudia Catacchio
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:58 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I right to assume that all this correspondence was produced after you already finished the program? It is unfortunate that you are not satisfied with your Cambridge experience, however, from what you wrote, it is not clear what you are trying to achieve here.
Cheers,
Guest99
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:42 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Wittenburg,
You are--hands down--the most pretensious pest. All the best!
Guy
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:16 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still don't see what your problem is. Alison Hennegan is listed as a member of the English faculty by the university's email service. Stewart Eames is a well-known Shakespearean scholar. I know his wife has taken a position as the head of a college in Durham within the past few months, so perhaps he's moved there with her. Why does this 'misrepresentation' matter to you so much? Were you displeased with the quality of education you received in the summer school? If so, you have grounds for complaint. If not, why are you posting (repeatedly) on a grad student forum complaining about it?
Kalu-chan
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:22 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me Sarah did try her best to answer your enquiry. It's not clear what else you expect of them. These sorts of discrepancies happen all the time, especially when you are dealing with a highly departmentalised place such as Cambridge. It's only reasonable and practical to expect that certain changes to Faculty lists etc made between printing cycles can only be published in the next available print; even if the department have already gone ahead to updating their webpage with such info.
554
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:37 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does appear that your question has been answered - these people are members of the English Department (The precise meaning of "member of the faculty" being discussed on thread I). Cambridge prides itsself with not changing with the times - it is not unusual within the University to find websites with outdated and inaccurate information - the university doesn't give appriopriate priority to communicating accuratly with students, staff, the public etc. so while its understandable that you would reasonably assume the faculty list on an official website to be accurate it wasn't. This problem is endemic throughout Cambridge - and is despite the University paying hundreds (literially) of Computer officers - many of whom get paid much more than young academics, research assistants and of course research students.
As for getting a response having paid £2K for 3 weeks - that's pretty impressive - even the "message recieved" one liner from a member of university staff is more than PhD students paying 20-40 times what you did to the University can expect to get back from many members of staff. That's why you'll see throughout the forum the suggestion that to get things done - you have to work through an intermetetary - a supervisor or departmental/course secreatary - many staff at Cambridge have a distain for students (not surprising given the nature of a typical Cambridge student) - they won't enguage directly, prefering to deal only with their own kind.
If you do want something - such as a refund - or an apology then asking for it explicity might help. If you simply want the summer school to take more care in how it describes those teaching on it - then you might have achieved that already by drawing attention to the problem you saw. Hopefully those considering attending in the future will find your writings when they research the summer school and they'll beable to weigh those into their decision to attend.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:19 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are asking what I want. It should be obvious even if I hadn't spelled it out. If credentials have been misstated, what's called for is:
- Acknowledgement;
- Correction.
But at unworldly Cambridge, it seems this is anything but obvious.
Reactions here suggest many at Cambridge aren't merely resigned to admin stonewalling, but bitter that others aren't.
Apparently at Cambridge you're supposed to go away contented when specific questions are answered with: "I can confirm that all the information was as 'reasonably up-to-date' as possible at the time of going to press."
Weeks ago the summer school director wrote: "I have been investigating this matter.... I gather that two [lecturers] are already being restored to the [English Faculty] list, with apology."
I checked http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/faculty/index.htm before posting yesterday. There's been no change.
Guy wrote:
Why does this 'misrepresentation' matter to you so much? Were you displeased with the quality of education you received in the summer school? If so, you have grounds for complaint. If not, why are you posting....
And how do you imagine Cambridge would respond to a complaint about "quality," when it rebuffs complaints about something as unambiguous as misrepresentation?
Guest wrote:
while its understandable that you would reasonably assume the faculty list on an official website to be accurate it wasn't. This problem is endemic throughout Cambridge
Because I did NOT assume that, I directly inquired of the English Faculty. Their response:
"If these people were once members of the Faculty, they are no longer."
Claudia Catacchio
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:28 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anything, I think your complaints have been acknowledged...by faculty members, by the administration, by us. As for the correction, you can't expect 24h response times...but I'm sure they will take care not to misrepresent anything in the next catalogue. With summer just over, this is just not a priority right now...until the next summer program comes around (or the application period for it).
gotp
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:35 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Catacchio wrote:
I agree with Claudia here, Uriel. With your mix of personal personal qualities (I won't list them) and vast amounts of time --both of which I infer from your activities here on the board-- you could be a real asset to hugely important lobbies. Think anti-hunger, anti-poverty, pro-Kyoto, etc. Have you ever considered focussing your efforts and energies on such causes, rather than on relatively small and self-centred topics?
987
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:38 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to protect others from being scammed by Cambridge is a nobel casue isn't it? If that's what he believes he's doing.
Ab
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:06 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is so silly. get a life.
Guy
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:26 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Guy wrote:
Why does this 'misrepresentation' matter to you so much? Were you displeased with the quality of education you received in the summer school? If so, you have grounds for complaint. If not, why are you posting....
And how do you imagine Cambridge would respond to a complaint about "quality," when it rebuffs complaints about something as unambiguous as misrepresentation?
But they HAVE acknowledged you. You reproduced a stream of emails. You're chucking all the toys out of the pram because of other people's job titles?
Also, as I mentioned on the previous thread, at no time in the summer school prospectus is it claimed that all lecturers are members of the Cambridge faculty. Here's the link for anyone who doubts me: http://www.cont-ed.cam.ac.uk/IntSummer/ . Usually, the course is described as being taught by lecturers from 'Cambridge and beyond', or else described as being taught by 'distinguished lecturers, many from within Cambridge'.
So...you want an apology for an imagined wrong, and more recognition than the sheaf of emails you've already received. Thank goodness this seems to be a matter of principle...I'd hate to see how you'd behave if you were actually unhappy with the quality.
Leon
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:47 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'987' and '554' (the subtext is non-existent, you're no numerologist): has correct spelling become an evil to be resisted at all costs?
Uriel: on one of your previous threads you asked for a poor pony to be put to rest. Could we not put the rider down while we're at it?
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:38 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Catacchio wrote:
I think what you want [is] either to keep busy by writing to people or posting on forums, or maybe you just want attention.... [D]on't let it become a useless obsession (it's pretty close to that already).
Perhaps Claudia, an aspiring psychologist, should try harder not to confuse dissent and deviancy.
Quote:
Uriel: People are asking what I want. It should be obvious ... what's called for is Acknowledgement ...
Guy: But they HAVE acknowledged you. You reproduced a stream of emails.
Sigh. Not obvious enough. Acknowledgement OF ERROR.
Guy wrote:
as I mentioned on the previous thread, at no time in the summer school prospectus is it claimed that all lecturers are members of the Cambridge faculty. Here's the link for anyone who doubts me....
So...you want an apology for an imagined wrong....
I hope such illiteracy is not common at World U. #2. I'm not contesting claims that were never made. My issue is with claims that WERE made, explicitly.
Author Message
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:20 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look Uriel this is a ridiculous pass time for a grown man. Just because you have this opinion and perception doesn't make it true. There are countless discussions by other students on your course on the internet complaining about how you ALLEGEDLY ruined THEIR summer course, continually interupting, playing the naught pretentious child in class. You continually ALLEGEDLY harrass those students especially BR (a germanic sounding girl) on the internet they repeatedly state they just don't want anything to do with you or to talk to you or to receive emails from you, you persist. DO YOU NOT GET IT. You complain YOUR specific complaints aren't addressed and yet the majority of students gave contradicting accounts of the course to you. Why should we believe you? There are many examples ALLEGED available on the internet and blogs of you pestering and stalking a restaurant owner, a medical company, several summer students, a teacher in china, his wife, the school that sacked you in china, the students who hated you in China. Is Sarah Ormond the latest victim of your ALLEGED bizarre campaign against other people?. Most people your age have a wife and kids and better things to do. Why do you feel the ALLEGED need to pass yourself off as a teacher(qualifications?), a writer (publications?), a philosopher (Logic? Reason? Sanity?), an academic (you paid for a holiday staying in a Cambridge College). Most people on this forum have degrees, academic publications, PhDs and qualifications. You got a ALLEGED reply from a lowly academic administative temp in the faculty stating that if some academics (who it turns out were) were faculty members they weren't on her list, you demand that all lecturers on a summer school course teach "a credit" which shows you know NOTHING about Cambridge degree, why don't you stop trying to take advantage of an ambiguous reply from a temporary secretary and go and do something useful or at least that doesn't involve ALLEGEDLY harassing or stalking innocents. You post partial emails/responses and then latter more appears it's doctored evidence. I for one believe you are dangerous, a pest and I hope the outcome is that the summer school programme and future employers google on people like you ensuring no unfortunate summer students are subjected to your (forums ALLEGEDLY suggest) intolerable behaviour in class and no employer has the liability of your behaviour on co-workers (ALLEGEDLY the client who took you to court, the chinese school who sacked you for ALLEGED behaviour towards their students). My english is poor but I hope I have conveyed my points.[/code]
rtyuio
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:11 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel's website says:
Though I occasionally call myself a "writer," I'm not exactly, if you must be strictly technical about it, a published writer.
If you read through his website you might be amazed by the arrogant tone of the Cambridge staff who've apparantly emailed him - one claiming to be "highly educated", and another saying he might find it hard to remte if they met.
Also look through the International Summer Schools websites - they do appear to be passing themselves of as academicly associated with the university - are they? - I don't know?? They also appear to me to suggest " St Chad’s" is a college of the University..
Someone could - from the material on the web get the impression that they're paying for more than immersion in the environment of Cambridge by paying to partipiate in a summer school - there is mention of "Acceptance" onto the programme suggesting to me it's competitve (is it?), and one of the "FAQs" is can current Cambridge Students partipiate - would any ask if they could do that? why?
There's alot that's worth shining light on here for the preservation of the reputation of the University. If only they way university staff treat those on these courses - which from Uriel's website appears even worse than they treat grad students!
The summer school website says baseball caps are banned in colleges and shorts banned in dining halls - are these real Cambridge rules - or ones made up for the summer school to make the place more austere (as if it needed that!).
It's also interesting that apparrantly even these people paying huge amounts get shoddy dirty accommodation from Cambridge.
Kalu-chan
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:53 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!! This is incredible! There's always a story within a story!!! I googled Uriel Wittenberg, and stuff came up that seemed to confirm Qwerty's assertions here that there is allegedly far more than meets the eye. According to Uriel's own personal blog, he did seem to have a disagreement with the QUALITY of the summer lit programme, couldn't find one "like-minded soul" in a group of 120 students who did the summer course, got on the nerves of the program director to the point where he had to tell him:
"[I}would rather not meet with you, for I might find it difficult to remain polite.... Nevertheless, I assure you that I will give serious thought to your criticisms."
http://www.urielw.com/cambridge/1.htm
What really happened Uriel? I suggest if it's not 'life threatening' that you just let it rest. This reminds me of another bloke from Toronto who posted here a few months back:
http://www.gradunion.cam.ac.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1884&highlight=authorship+phd+thesis
Very sad indeed!
---
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:55 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rtyuio wrote:
The summer school website says baseball caps are banned in colleges and shorts banned in dining halls - are these real Cambridge rules - or ones made up for the summer school to make the place more austere (as if it needed that!).
No, shorts are of course not banned - at least not in Trinity College....
Claudia Catacchio
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:39 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we all have acknowledged that the summer schools may not be a perfect institution, that the staff here can be rude, that there is room for improvement. It's just that Mr. Wittenberg keeps coming back for more, for some reason. It's cases like that that made me steer clear of clinical psychology. The fact that people find it hard to remain polite around him is not surprising as it is very difficult to meet his demands.
Joe
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:38 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rtyuio wrote:
Since you haven't bothered to provide a link none of us can properly address your concerns. But FYI "St Chads" is a block of flats owned bt St Catharine's College where summer school students staying at the college are housed.
qwerty
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:28 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Did Uriel write to him disputing whether the guy was educated or qualified? Was it a response to a questioning of his crudentials (Uriel seems to do that a lot %SIGH%)
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:11 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
qwerty wrote:
[Interminable fevered rant]
I stalked a medical company. Right.
Claudia Catacchio wrote:
Mr. Wittenberg keeps coming back for more, for some reason. It's cases like that that made me steer clear of clinical psychology....
[A]gain, I suggest to LET IT GO.
Claudia. Relax! What compulsion makes you keep coming back for more?
The Goat
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:24 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel, your messages here and the material on your webpage show every sign of obsession. When something is resolved, you cannot help but continue to pester. A few shortcomings in the list of personnel for the summer school you attended is no good reason for battering people over the head with claims that you were misled. Did other summer school students have the same indictment? Moreover, you seem to have simply alienated them. And on examination of your webpage, your behaviour in this instance seems to be part of a wider pattern, in which you pick fights and refuse to back down, even when the other side presumes (knows?) that there really is nothing to fight about.
Let this be my first, and final word. You've been indulged for long enough. Reactions are what you want, and you shouldn't get any more.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:39 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goat wrote:
you pick fights and refuse to back down, even when the other side presumes (knows?) that there really is nothing to fight about.
Goat, that's an interesting formulation: "presumes (knows?)"
When some official "presumes" your issue has no basis (and when has any official ever presumed otherwise?), you, of course, would abandon it pronto.
Ain't no one gonna call this here goat obsessional.
If most people there are so well-behaved, small wonder Cambridge officials feel no need to explain an open contradiction in claims about teacher credentials, even when made by an already dubious summer program.
The "wider pattern" you've discerned at my website? How much time have you killed watching shoot-em-ups on the tube? My site gives you opportunities -- for example, the exciting (and highly recommended) Inside China's Diplomacy School -- to see what happens in *reality*, scrupulously rendered, when someone doesn't kowtow to official presumptions of official blamelessness.
That should be especially illuminating for goats everywhere.
Observer
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:01 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel, if you're looking for an intellectual discussion from Cambridge students, you won't get it. You simply are too thought-provoking for anything here.
Moron Patrol
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:59 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Uriel do you really think that Cambridge needs to bait and switch its teachers to draw idiots like you? If the teachers are good enough to represent Cambridge for a summer school programme, you should feel lucky just to be in the same room with 'em. Many of us, myself included, have enjoyed stomping on you. Thanks for being such a dumbass. Feel free to keep posting to your heart's content.
Sincerely yours,
Moron Patrol
Guest
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:59 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Uriel do you really think that Cambridge needs to bait and switch its teachers to draw idiots like you? If the teachers are good enough to represent Cambridge for a summer school programme, you should feel lucky just to be in the same room with 'em. Many of us, myself included, have enjoyed stomping on you. Thanks for being such a dumbass. Feel free to keep posting to your heart's content.
Sincerely yours,
Moron Patrol
eng und
who?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a computer? Do you have a problem with the quality of teaching provided at the summer school? Or are you simply chasing an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of ERROR to gain some kind of CLOSURE? As I think has been suggested, most people in this forum, including, potentially, YOU, have better ways to spend their TIME. Without wishing to be PRESUMPTIOUS, I imagine that the summer school teaching was of a high standard. As a student at Cambridge, taught by one of the QUESTIONABLE members of the faculty, I can say that that person's credentials, and teaching, are more than satisfactory. If you would like to question the SEMANTICS, or indeed the GRAMMAR, of what I have said, I am happy to say that I MAY, or may NOT, reply. Best wishes, and good luck in the big wide world.
BORAX
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:54 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel doesn't add to this thread any longer. Be grateful.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:37 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No no, I'm still here, and still grateful as ever for the continuing insights your comments offer into the Cambridge community of scholars.
Borax -- great to hear from you! No, I'm not a computer. And honestly this seems like a fine way to spend my TIME. I gather you share my feeling.
As to summer school quality -- we have no differences there either, since there's no way you'd ever want to be "PRESUMPTIOUS."
But as long as you're maintaining anonymity anyways, couldn't you divulge *which* "QUESTIONABLE" member of the faculty you deem satisfactory in their credentials and teaching?
Author Message
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Uriel's website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel, why haven't you updated the Cambridge experience section of your website yet? The last addition was made during October. I found your rants against the summer school rather amusing.
Have you ever visited a university or other institution and not felt the need to complain? I get the impression that all you do is complain without offering any viable solutions. Perhaps its time you took a break from work/study. I could recommend a holiday in the British Virgin Islands although I'm sure you find some sort of complaint to make about the hotel, location etc.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:21 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You refer of course to Uriel at Cambridge. Let's not hide that link; there might still be a few isolated souls at Cambridge who haven't heard about it.
And please, I've become a bit sensitive about the term "rant." Some nut from Downing College, bent on avenging Cambridge, actually pursued me into Wikipedia to wipe out (twice) a contribution I'd made there on a topic that's not even related to your institution, using "rant" as his rationale. Talk about obsessional! I'd warn you to look out for him but of course he took care to preserve his anonymity. He could be anyone in your midst.
Anyway, a word to the wise: Watch what you say around Downing folks. They're a bit touchy.
The delay since my last Uriel at Cambridge installment is causing all sorts of anxiety and longing, not just for you but many others. It's a terrible thing and I do sympathize. But I haven't yet heard the volume of entreaties from readers that I expected or think appropriate. The suffering has been all too muted. I wouldn't suggest conspiracy, but it's almost like there's an organized effort, perhaps emanating from Downing, to suppress news of my readers' distress.
Your post, in fact, is the first hard evidence that anyone's even noticed that I aborted the series.
Sometimes a bit of a wrestling match between author and readers is necessary. They (perversely!) affect indifference, while the author holds out til they break down. I've been through this before, with my Reflections on Corporate America. After two years it just seemed cruel to prolong the misery, and I yielded the final installment. But I'm older now, and having reflected further, I figure I was too merciful.
cont
Respect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Wittenberg wrote:
Uriel, I've read your website and yes, you have a point, perhaps even more two. I have nothing against you or China or Corporate America or Cambridge (although it gets me down sometimes too). Haven't we all at some point felt ourselves to be but a small pawn amongst the mighty, soulless machine that is The System?
I'm not even sure of my own point here, but you seem like a man with a lot of energy, nay, oodles and oodles of boundess energy which is manifest in your erudition, love of literature, not to mention your yen for writing... and writing... and, yes. Ever thought of becoming a human rights advocate or lobbyist?
How do you feel about the fact that our lives, when viewed objectively, are innately absurd and that with the long view of life, our lives are pretty meaningless (when I say long view, I mean, viewed over 10 million years or so)?
Uriel, I hope that your beef with Cambridge will be resolved because, lets face it, 800 years after your death, no one will know you ever existed. And I say that with the utmost respect.
Kind regards
4321
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:47 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS1 wrote:
That's no reason to stop fighting for what you believe in though.
Kalu-chan
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Re: Respect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS1 wrote:
How do you know that? Maybe if Uriel continues his 'rant' then he will eventually be remembered even as a footnote to Cambridge's history. Long after we lesser mortals have said our final adieus and sayonaras, and log out of this realm, it will be Uriel and Cambridge battling to the end of the ages. Fear not Oh Uriel, for Cambridge might very well be your gate to immortality. If thou remainest faithful to thy cause, and misseth not an apportunity to spead the 'word' here and everywhere else on the WWW, then thy name shall indeed be remembered ad infinitum.
NutterWatch
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:29 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, what a loser. Do you have a job? A girlfriend?
Someone who feels the need to write 30,000+ words about a summer school they had a minor niggle with, and well over 100,000 words about a job they were crap at and got fired from either has too much time on their hands or a serious problem.
And are you surprised people want to stay anonymous when criticising you - you have quite a history of persecuting people who dare to cross you (eg the long suffering summer school programme people - but see also http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/001731.php and http://ellensander.com/2004_09_01_cp_archive.html#109469265998026230 )
cont
Truly sad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Wittenberg wrote:
The delay since my last Uriel at Cambridge installment is causing all sorts of anxiety and longing, not just for you but many others. It's a terrible thing and I do sympathize. But I haven't yet heard the volume of entreaties from readers that I expected or think appropriate. The suffering has been all too muted. I wouldn't suggest conspiracy, but it's almost like there's an organized effort, perhaps emanating from Downing, to suppress news of my readers' distress.
I'm sorry, but this thread is too much, and the above paragraph from Mr. Wittenberg proves it. It's "terrible" that he hasn't heard "the volume of entreaties" from Cambridge students? The "suffering," presumably from not hearing his rants, has been "muted" due to an "organized effort" from Downing? Yes, Uriel, you don't want to "suggest conspiracy," but nevertheless do so all the same, and I can guarantee you most Cambridge students here are not influenced by Downing, including those from Downing itself. It apparently hasn't occurred to the summer student that the reason for the silence is likely astonishment that someone, with an ounce of intellect (perhaps I'm assuming too much), would spend his time, and other people's time, on banal, trivial and pedantic pursuits. Surely this does not help your consultancy business? You truly have "issues," which I encourage you to resolve, in places other than this.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:34 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ever thought of becoming a human rights advocate or lobbyist? ... lets face it, 800 years after your death, no one will know you ever existed. "
"Man, what a loser. Do you have a job? A girlfriend?"
"Surely this does not help your consultancy business?"
One conviction, at least, seems firmly entrenched among Cambridge denizens: Writing is an absurd, ludicrous, crazy way to spend one's time.
They're spending years at Cambridge. But I'm the one who's got "issues," who needs to "get a life."
NutterWatch links to some of the laughably earnest hypocrisy and self-justifying cant of a couple of my detractors. Where did he find these? Quite possibly on my own site.
That's one of the signs that distinguishes truth-tellers from liars. My Peril and Agony of Free Speech invites readers to look at the opposing side, while the other side wants to keep readers from straying beyond its black holes.
But I suppose truth and openness can't impress folks who're comfortable with the hypocrisy and fear of debate I've depicted at their own institution of "learning."
Ah, Cambridge! Light and sacred draughts! What is your silly university doing to counter the surrounding "vast tapestry of lies" Harold Pinter spoke of in his speech?
Unless we somehow develop a "fierce intellectual determination" to seek truth, he warned, "we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man."
What are the odds?
cont
GS1
Pravda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Wittenberg wrote:
The average Cambridge student is too busy with her own life to rise to your bait.
On another point, I encourage you to seek tenure here at Cambridge since your intractable quest for the truth is a quality we sorely miss here.
Happy Christmas,
NutterWatch
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:09 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One conviction, at least, seems firmly entrenched among Cambridge denizens: Writing is an absurd, ludicrous, crazy way to spend one's time. [/quote]
No, not writing, that's not the problem - but then, no one suggested it was. Persecuting people for daring to delete a comment from their blogs, or for daring not to wish to reply to a tirade of rude emails about a minor issue in the summer school programme, or spending your waking hours trying to spread your bizarre conspiracy theory about why you got fired, on the other hand, is an absurd, ludicrous, crazy way to spend your time, Urielw.
NutterWatch
PS - if you really want to be a writer, you need to learn to write better.
Uriel Wittenberg
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:15 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a scintillating stratagem," wrote Pinter. "Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay."
Like Pinter said, the deceit is all around us. Its methods are so widely employed they're an integral feature of our culture, aped by all manner of people from corporate honchos to university administrators down to the lowly "Nutter."
Let's take a few moments this leisurely Sunday PM to examine some of these methods.
Quote:
spending your waking hours trying to spread your bizarre conspiracy theory about why you got fired
How does such deception succeed? (And it does succeed, as I've been lamenting in my new Deceit Culture series.)
First, it exploits a true fact -- that, in my China story, I get fired. People don't get fired for nothing, do they? Appeal to prejudice.
Then, embellishment to suggest the target is kinda nuts: 1) "spending your waking hours"; 2) "bizarre conspiracy theory."
The first is utter fiction, but people are receptive to that because they like a simple story, especially when it confirms their preconceptions -- and this indeed confirms the preconception they instantly form on hearing "fired." And they form that preconception because their imaginations are dominated (constricted) by stereotypes.
The second would be obviously false to anyone reading my story, since the story is not particularly bizarre or implausible; it doesn't suggest anything non-obvious or obscure that would fit the term "conspiracy"; and it's not a theory, but a fairly direct account of my observations (although, sure, some tangents are taken).
But, alas, people don't like to read; and, again, "bizarre conspiracy theory" sits comfortably with their preconceptions. So they opt for that.
But the liars surrounding us aren't so timid as to confine themselves to falsehoods about things people haven't read. They can lie about what's right before everyone's eyes. As Pinter says, "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening."
Thus Nutter (fabricating lies far more petty and pointless than those Pinter speaks of) writes about how I "persecut[ed] people for ... daring not to wish to reply to a tirade of rude emails about a minor issue in the summer school programme." That's the subject of this very thread. But there was no tirade; there were no rude emails; and the issue is the elementary one of truthfulness. Cambridge administrators told summer students that certain teachers were members of the English faculty; the English faculty said quite explicitly that that wasn't so; and the administrators have refused to resolve the contradiction.
Claudia Catacchio
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:04 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
No, let's not. I'm not sure why this thread had to be resurrected but can't we just agree and disagree and give it a rest? Cleary this discussion is going nowhere...
Kalu-chan
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
entertainment spending rebate...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Catacchio wrote:
No, let's not.
....
BORAX
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:18 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't you seen the photo of Uriel on his webpage? He is HOT. Take a look for yourselves. Phwooooooooaaaaaaaaar!!!
He can post on my Blog any day!
Wolfie
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:34 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Claudia. I will henceforth ignore this thread.
NutterWatch
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:21 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy this thread. Uriel's inane ramblings remind me that, no matter how dense some of the (undergrad) members of my college may seem, they could be even worse.
|