(06-24-2020 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cement increases the pH of a solution, so it is a base.

I've dealt with it a lot in my line of work while dealing with borehole abandonment and decontamination fluid.

Good to see you using your education instead of arguing law. Usage of the term "acid milkshake" would surely make the list.

The funny thing is that lad's distinction without a difference made 93 think it wasnt caustic. So not only did 93 ever fing bother to look up the acid-like properties of cement, he is now jumping to the conclusion from lad's inane distinction that there is no caustic issue with cement because cement is a "base". This is better than comedy.

93 keeps leaping from dumb*** conclusion to dumb*** conclusion without ever attempting to actually find stuff out on his own. I thought Rice people were taught to be a tad more critical and objective. And quite not as blind.

Isn't lye a base?

I thought lye was associated with dog faced pony soldiers or somefink.

Nah, the WashPo (unbiased journalists) keeps a list of Trump's lyes.

ANECDOTE, FOLLOWED BY COMMENTARY.

Alumni of Dr. Davies' freshman bio class will appreciate the notice.

ANECDOTE:

Sometime in the 64-65 school year, George Lincoln Rockwell, the national head of the American Nazi Party, came to Rice to speak.

I don't know who invited him, or what group. I was uninterested anyway. But he came to dinner at my college's commons, and as I left dinner, there was an impromptu Q&A session going on, so I stopped to watch.

From memory, these are the main points that have stuck with me over the years:

Nobody seemed to be on his side.
The discussion was quiet and respectful (of his status as a guest, I imagine)
He offended me early by referring to Mexicans as "little brown mongrels".
Maybe I remember that because one of my Hispanic friends prefaced a question with "speaking as a little brown mongrel". That drew laughs all around.
I left before the end.

For the curious, he was not in any sort of uniform. Suit and tie. The only insignia was a lapel pin. The American Nazi Party was a splinter group that got attention and publicity far beyond it its significance. Maybe a couple of hundred members at most. Definitely white supremacist, maybe white separatist. I don't remember.

COMMENTARY:

How things have changed. Back then, a controversial figure (yes he was) was welcomed to speak without violence. His ideas were heard, not agreed with. Today, even much less controversial figures are met with violence and sometimes rioting. Is the modern way better? Would Adams have met Jefferson with violence and endeavored to shut him up? Or vice-versa?

(06-24-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cement increases the pH of a solution, so it is a base.

I've dealt with it a lot in my line of work while dealing with borehole abandonment and decontamination fluid.

Good to see you using your education instead of arguing law.

The funny thing is that lad's distinction without a difference made 93 think it wasnt caustic. So not only did 93 ever fing bother to look up the acid-like properties of cement, he is now jumping to the conclusion from lad's inane distinction that there is no caustic issue with cement because cement is a "base". This is better than comedy.

93 keeps leaping from dumb*** conclusion to dumb*** conclusion without ever attempting to actually find stuff out on his own. I thought Rice people were taught to be a tad more critical and objective. And quite not as blind.

lad's comment that 'it is a base', while accurate, simply is amazingly misdescriptive -- I think lad either thinks that a good base burn is better than a good acid burn, or that base burns are a lesser issue than acid burns, or he just tossed the issue that cement is a base out there for the ***** and giggles without regard to the scope of caustic properties of base like cement.

Naw - caustic burns can be severe regardless of the acid or base. I was simply making sure the correct term was being used.

I mean, if you asked me if I heard about acid milkshakes, I would have said no. If you had asked me if I heard about cement milkshakes I would have said yes, because there were reports of them being used. Or heck, even if you had said caustic milkshakes, I would have said yes. Cus, you know, language matters.

I actually thought you might have been referencing the debunked milkshake poisoning at Shake Shack, since the Portland incident had purportedly involved Portland.

Portland cement?

I think the only one Lad misdirected was 93.

Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

(06-24-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good to see you using your education instead of arguing law.

The funny thing is that lad's distinction without a difference made 93 think it wasnt caustic. So not only did 93 ever fing bother to look up the acid-like properties of cement, he is now jumping to the conclusion from lad's inane distinction that there is no caustic issue with cement because cement is a "base". This is better than comedy.

93 keeps leaping from dumb*** conclusion to dumb*** conclusion without ever attempting to actually find stuff out on his own. I thought Rice people were taught to be a tad more critical and objective. And quite not as blind.

lad's comment that 'it is a base', while accurate, simply is amazingly misdescriptive -- I think lad either thinks that a good base burn is better than a good acid burn, or that base burns are a lesser issue than acid burns, or he just tossed the issue that cement is a base out there for the ***** and giggles without regard to the scope of caustic properties of base like cement.

Naw - caustic burns can be severe regardless of the acid or base. I was simply making sure the correct term was being used.

I mean, if you asked me if I heard about acid milkshakes, I would have said no. If you had asked me if I heard about cement milkshakes I would have said yes, because there were reports of them being used. Or heck, even if you had said caustic milkshakes, I would have said yes. Cus, you know, language matters.

I actually thought you might have been referencing the debunked milkshake poisoning at Shake Shack, since the Portland incident had purportedly involved Portland.

Portland cement?

I think the only one Lad misdirected was 93.

Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

Is Portland cement a brand or a type?

(06-24-2020 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ANECDOTE, FOLLOWED BY COMMENTARY.

Alumni of Dr. Davies' freshman bio class will appreciate the notice.

ANECDOTE:

Sometime in the 64-65 school year, George Lincoln Rockwell, the national head of the American Nazi Party, came to Rice to speak.

I don't know who invited him, or what group. I was uninterested anyway. But he came to dinner at my college's commons, and as I left dinner, there was an impromptu Q&A session going on, so I stopped to watch.

From memory, these are the main points that have stuck with me over the years:

Nobody seemed to be on his side.
The discussion was quiet and respectful (of his status as a guest, I imagine)
He offended me early by referring to Mexicans as "little brown mongrels".
Maybe I remember that because one of my Hispanic friends prefaced a question with "speaking as a little brown mongrel". That drew laughs all around.
I left before the end.

For the curious, he was not in any sort of uniform. Suit and tie. The only insignia was a lapel pin. The American Nazi Party was a splinter group that got attention and publicity far beyond it its significance. Maybe a couple of hundred members at most. Definitely white supremacist, maybe white separatist. I don't remember.

COMMENTARY:

How things have changed. Back then, a controversial figure (yes he was) was welcomed to speak without violence. His ideas were heard, not agreed with. Today, even much less controversial figures are met with violence and sometimes rioting. Is the modern way better? Would Adams have met Jefferson with violence and endeavored to shut him up? Or vice-versa?

Yep... better approach back then.

(06-24-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The funny thing is that lad's distinction without a difference made 93 think it wasnt caustic. So not only did 93 ever fing bother to look up the acid-like properties of cement, he is now jumping to the conclusion from lad's inane distinction that there is no caustic issue with cement because cement is a "base". This is better than comedy.

93 keeps leaping from dumb*** conclusion to dumb*** conclusion without ever attempting to actually find stuff out on his own. I thought Rice people were taught to be a tad more critical and objective. And quite not as blind.

lad's comment that 'it is a base', while accurate, simply is amazingly misdescriptive -- I think lad either thinks that a good base burn is better than a good acid burn, or that base burns are a lesser issue than acid burns, or he just tossed the issue that cement is a base out there for the ***** and giggles without regard to the scope of caustic properties of base like cement.

Naw - caustic burns can be severe regardless of the acid or base. I was simply making sure the correct term was being used.

I mean, if you asked me if I heard about acid milkshakes, I would have said no. If you had asked me if I heard about cement milkshakes I would have said yes, because there were reports of them being used. Or heck, even if you had said caustic milkshakes, I would have said yes. Cus, you know, language matters.

I actually thought you might have been referencing the debunked milkshake poisoning at Shake Shack, since the Portland incident had purportedly involved Portland.

Portland cement?

I think the only one Lad misdirected was 93.

Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

Is Portland cement a brand or a type?

It is the type of cement.

Per Wikipedia: "Its name is derived from its similarity to Portland stone, a type of building stone quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England.[6]"

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

(06-24-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Naw - caustic burns can be severe regardless of the acid or base. I was simply making sure the correct term was being used.

I mean, if you asked me if I heard about acid milkshakes, I would have said no. If you had asked me if I heard about cement milkshakes I would have said yes, because there were reports of them being used. Or heck, even if you had said caustic milkshakes, I would have said yes. Cus, you know, language matters.

I actually thought you might have been referencing the debunked milkshake poisoning at Shake Shack, since the Portland incident had purportedly involved Portland.

Portland cement?

I think the only one Lad misdirected was 93.

Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

Is Portland cement a brand or a type?

It is the type of cement.

Per Wikipedia: "Its name is derived from its similarity to Portland stone, a type of building stone quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England.[6]"

So nothing to do with Portland, OR or Portland, ME. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

(06-24-2020 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Portland cement?

I think the only one Lad misdirected was 93.

Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

Is Portland cement a brand or a type?

It is the type of cement.

Per Wikipedia: "Its name is derived from its similarity to Portland stone, a type of building stone quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England.[6]"

So nothing to do with Portland, OR or Portland, ME. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Nope - but it was fun to use that play on words earlier.

(06-24-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, concrete has Portland cement as an ingredient...

Is Portland cement a brand or a type?

It is the type of cement.

Per Wikipedia: "Its name is derived from its similarity to Portland stone, a type of building stone quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England.[6]"

So nothing to do with Portland, OR or Portland, ME. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Nope - but it was fun to use that play on words earlier.

We don't have enough fun here.

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

I chose Rice primarily for Numbers' 1 and 3. My point of 2 was the exposure/requirement to be broad. As to 4, I suppose I didn't see it as political as say Berkeley, but I'd probably rather be an athlete at Berkeley today than at Rice? I'd have to think about that.... but that's based on 'big time athletics' and not any political shift.

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.
Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.
As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.
We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Not many. Most of the so-called "conservative" universities get that reputation because of strict religious considerations--BYU, for example. That does not appeal to me.

Hillsdale comes to mind. I did not know and would never have thought of it when I was making my decision--small, liberal arts, in Michigan of all places. But I know about it today, and would consider it today.

No, back when I was making my decision, Rice was unique. And that was its appeal. That uniqueness--and with it, a lot of the appeal--is now gone.

Funny story. Back in HS, I got a letter telling me basically that I was accepted to Pepperdine, if I applied. Apparently they did that to all National Merit finalists. At that time, it was an inner-city campus in the heart of Watts. I thought, no thanks. 3 or 4 years later, we hosted them in basketball. I was working in the SID office by then, and they had moved out to Malibu by then. Their basketball press guide, obviously a recruiting document, had lots of photos of the beach and shots showing how the campus was just a short walk to the beach. All I could think of was, "Damn, why didn't I know they were going to do this?"

(06-24-2020 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.
Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.
As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.
We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Not many. Most of the so-called "conservative" universities get that reputation because of strict religious considerations--BYU, for example. That does not appeal to me.

Hillsdale comes to mind. I did not know and would never have thought of it when I was making my decision--small, liberal arts, in Michigan of all places. But I know about it today, and would consider it today.

No, back when I was making my decision, Rice was unique. And that was its appeal. That uniqueness--and with it, a lot of the appeal--is now gone.

Funny story. Back in HS, I got a letter telling me basically that I was accepted to Pepperdine, if I applied. Apparently they did that to all National Merit finalists. At that time, it was an inner-city campus in the heart of Watts. I thought, no thanks. 3 or 4 years later, we hosted them in basketball. I was working in the SID office by then, and they had moved out to Malibu by then. Their basketball press guide, obviously a recruiting document, had lots of photos of the beach and shots showing how the campus was just a short walk to the beach. All I could think of was, "Damn, why didn't I know they were going to do this?"

Good story. I didn't realize they were inner-city prior to Malibu. Every time I drive by that Malibu campus I wonder how in the world those students get any studying done.

(06-24-2020 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.
Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.
As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.
We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Not many. Most of the so-called "conservative" universities get that reputation because of strict religious considerations--BYU, for example. That does not appeal to me.

Hillsdale comes to mind. I did not know and would never have thought of it when I was making my decision--small, liberal arts, in Michigan of all places. But I know about it today, and would consider it today.

No, back when I was making my decision, Rice was unique. And that was its appeal. That uniqueness--and with it, a lot of the appeal--is now gone.

Funny story. Back in HS, I got a letter telling me basically that I was accepted to Pepperdine, if I applied. Apparently they did that to all National Merit finalists. At that time, it was an inner-city campus in the heart of Watts. I thought, no thanks. 3 or 4 years later, we hosted them in basketball. I was working in the SID office by then, and they had moved out to Malibu by then. Their basketball press guide, obviously a recruiting document, had lots of photos of the beach and shots showing how the campus was just a short walk to the beach. All I could think of was, "Damn, why didn't I know they were going to do this?"

Pepperdine even has a football legacy. Leach earned his law degree from Pepperdine.

(06-24-2020 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ANECDOTE, FOLLOWED BY COMMENTARY.

Alumni of Dr. Davies' freshman bio class will appreciate the notice.

ANECDOTE:

Sometime in the 64-65 school year, George Lincoln Rockwell, the national head of the American Nazi Party, came to Rice to speak.

I don't know who invited him, or what group. I was uninterested anyway. But he came to dinner at my college's commons, and as I left dinner, there was an impromptu Q&A session going on, so I stopped to watch.

From memory, these are the main points that have stuck with me over the years:

Nobody seemed to be on his side.
The discussion was quiet and respectful (of his status as a guest, I imagine)
He offended me early by referring to Mexicans as "little brown mongrels".
Maybe I remember that because one of my Hispanic friends prefaced a question with "speaking as a little brown mongrel". That drew laughs all around.
I left before the end.

For the curious, he was not in any sort of uniform. Suit and tie. The only insignia was a lapel pin. The American Nazi Party was a splinter group that got attention and publicity far beyond it its significance. Maybe a couple of hundred members at most. Definitely white supremacist, maybe white separatist. I don't remember.

COMMENTARY:

How things have changed. Back then, a controversial figure (yes he was) was welcomed to speak without violence. His ideas were heard, not agreed with. Today, even much less controversial figures are met with violence and sometimes rioting. Is the modern way better? Would Adams have met Jefferson with violence and endeavored to shut him up? Or vice-versa?

In 1856, Rep. Preston "Bully" Brooks, D-SC, met Sen. Charles Sumner, R-MA , with considerable violence: he beat him half to death with a cane -- on the floor of the Senate! It took three years for Sumner to recover.

Brooks later told the House that he "meant no disrespect to the Senate of the United States". His constituents re-elected him to Congress twice.

(06-24-2020 03:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ANECDOTE, FOLLOWED BY COMMENTARY.

Alumni of Dr. Davies' freshman bio class will appreciate the notice.

ANECDOTE:

Sometime in the 64-65 school year, George Lincoln Rockwell, the national head of the American Nazi Party, came to Rice to speak.

I don't know who invited him, or what group. I was uninterested anyway. But he came to dinner at my college's commons, and as I left dinner, there was an impromptu Q&A session going on, so I stopped to watch.

From memory, these are the main points that have stuck with me over the years:

Nobody seemed to be on his side.
The discussion was quiet and respectful (of his status as a guest, I imagine)
He offended me early by referring to Mexicans as "little brown mongrels".
Maybe I remember that because one of my Hispanic friends prefaced a question with "speaking as a little brown mongrel". That drew laughs all around.
I left before the end.

For the curious, he was not in any sort of uniform. Suit and tie. The only insignia was a lapel pin. The American Nazi Party was a splinter group that got attention and publicity far beyond it its significance. Maybe a couple of hundred members at most. Definitely white supremacist, maybe white separatist. I don't remember.

COMMENTARY:

How things have changed. Back then, a controversial figure (yes he was) was welcomed to speak without violence. His ideas were heard, not agreed with. Today, even much less controversial figures are met with violence and sometimes rioting. Is the modern way better? Would Adams have met Jefferson with violence and endeavored to shut him up? Or vice-versa?

In 1856, Rep. Preston "Bully" Brooks, D-SC, met Sen. Charles Sumner, R-MA , with considerable violence: he beat him half to death with a cane -- on the floor of the Senate! It took three years for Sumner to recover.

Brooks later told the House that he "meant no disrespect to the Senate of the United States". His constituents re-elected him to Congress twice.

Biden has threatened to take Trump out behind the gym and beat him up. maybe he is just an old-fashioned politician.

Didn't David Crockett and Andrew Jackson have similar incidents.

In any case, I was comparing and contrasting 1965 to 2020.

George Lincoln Rockwell was 1965-66, spring of 66 I think, because that was my freshman year and I was there for it. The chem lecture hall was full for his speech, and I don't think there was one person on his side.

(06-24-2020 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George Lincoln Rockwell was 1965-66, spring of 66 I think, because that was my freshman year and I was there for it. The chem lecture hall was full for his speech, and I don't think there was one person on his side.

You probably are right. I did not go to the one in the Chem Lecture Hall. The meeting I saw was, as I said, impromptu and in one of the college commons. I also saw nobody on his side.

(06-24-2020 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George Lincoln Rockwell was 1965-66, spring of 66 I think, because that was my freshman year and I was there for it. The chem lecture hall was full for his speech, and I don't think there was one person on his side.

You probably are right. I did not go to the one in the Chem Lecture Hall. The meeting I saw was, as I said, impromptu and in one of the college commons. I also saw nobody on his side.

IIRC, that would probably have been Baker or Will Rice, since I think one of them sponsored him. I know Wiess didn't, and I don't think it was Hanszen.