"It was an accident'" my Ass!

[Safe_Bet]

Last Friday, The Harvard Crimson, the school paper of Harvard University, reported that at least 36 books, dealing with LGBT subject matter, at Harvard's Lamont Library had been vandalized with what appeared to be urine. It was initially reported and investigated as a hate crime.

On Monday, Evelynn M. Hammonds, Dean of Harvard College, issued a memorandum that stated that the incident was no longer being investigated as a hate crime, but was instead an "accident".

Allegedly, the 36 FREAK'IN BOOKS were damaged by their own library personnel who "accidentally" spilling a bottle of urine that had been left on the shelf.


I am screaming "BULLSHIT" on this one!

• First of all the actual vandalism occurred back on November 24th and wasn't reported to the campus police until December 10th.
  
  
• Then after an exhaustive TWO DAY INVESTIGATION, it has been determined that it was an accident.
  
  
• A library employee just "happened" to find a bottle of piss sitting on a shelf in the library and just "happened" to "accidentally" spill it on 36 FREAK'IN BOOKS that just "happen" to be LGBTQ related.

I'm no Harvard grad, but I'm not so stupid that I can't see a cover up when it's THIS clear.




http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/12/books-library-incident-community/

http://college.harvard.edu/icb/icb....viewParam_name=Lamont#a_icb_pagecontent557848

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ghost Girl is back.

But no one cares if Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and God Knows What books get dipped in piss.

At Schlub U, my alma mater, guys cum in shoes at the library. Thats a real problem.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Last Friday, The Harvard Crimson, the school paper of Harvard University, reported that at least 36 books, dealing with LGBT subject matter, at Harvard's Lamont Library had been vandalized with what appeared to be urine. It was initially reported and investigated as a hate crime.

On Monday, Evelynn M. Hammonds, Dean of Harvard College, issued a memorandum that stated that the incident was no longer being investigated as a hate crime, but was instead an "accident".

Allegedly, the 36 FREAK'IN BOOKS were damaged by their own library personnel who "accidentally" spilling a bottle of urine that had been left on the shelf.


I am screaming "BULLSHIT" on this one!

• First of all the actual vandalism occurred back on November 24th and wasn't reported to the campus police until December 10th.
  
  
• Then after an exhaustive TWO DAY INVESTIGATION, it has been determined that it was an accident.
  
  
• A library employee just "happened" to find a bottle of piss sitting on a shelf in the library and just "happened" to "accidentally" spill it on 36 FREAK'IN BOOKS that just "happen" to be LGBTQ related.

I'm no Harvard grad, but I'm not so stupid that I can't see a cover up when it's THIS clear.




http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/12/books-library-incident-community/

http://college.harvard.edu/icb/icb....viewParam_name=Lamont#a_icb_pagecontent557848

Why are you so suspicious? Don't all libraries keep bottles of piss on the shelves?

 

[favoritesgoddess]

Apparently only Harvard. I have to bring my own bottles of piss to the library.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, I sure do think you need to get out your pitch fork and light up your torch (and be sure to bring your underage children along with you to pump up your cause) and race all the way from California to Harvard and burn that sucker down. If I needed a reason to hyperventilate about how cruel and personally violating life is to me, I guess this would be a candidate.

Now, how you're going to make an erotic story out of it is beyond me (you could change the urine to semen, I guess, and go from there). But I'll leave that--among other things--as your returned-from-the-dead cross to bear.

 

[Carnevil9]

So, let me get this straight: Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is okay, but soaking books in it is right out? Got it!

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, let me get this straight: Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is okay, but soaking books in it is right out? Got it!

I don't think either is okay, but buying a crucifix and immersing it in a bottle of piss is not vandalism, while damaging or destroying books in a library is, whatever way you choose to do it.

I'm not sure about the MA definition of hate crime, but this sounds like one.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well, I sure do think you need to get out your pitch fork and light up your torch (and be sure to bring your underage children along with you to pump up your cause) and race all the way from California to Harvard and burn that sucker down. If I needed a reason to hyperventilate about how cruel and personally violating life is to me, I guess this would be a candidate.

Now, how you're going to make an erotic story out of it is beyond me (you could change the urine to semen, I guess, and go from there). But I'll leave that--among other things--as your returned-from-the-dead cross to bear.

The fact that you don't find this personally offensive (both the vandalism AND the cover up) just gives additional credence to my belief that you are either a self-hating homo who believes that we should all be treated this way or you really aren't gay at all. In either event, you are a waste of my time and are going on ignore along with the other trolls. Bu-bye.

So, let me get this straight: Placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is okay, but soaking books in it is right out? Got it!

Do you consider burning a cross on a black person's lawn a religious act, too dipshit????

I don't think either is okay, but buying a crucifix and immersing it in a bottle of piss is not vandalism, while damaging or destroying books in a library is, whatever way you choose to do it.

I'm not sure about the MA definition of hate crime, but this sounds like one.

Yes, this does constitute a hate crime in MA, as far as I can tell because it was vandalism against a specific group. The fact that Harvard is now calling it an "accident" just means that they are trying to cover it up. You don't "accidental" spill piss on 36 specific LGBTQ books. (I would have had a hard time believing 4 - 5 books, but 36??? Bullshit!)

 

[sr71plt]

The fact that you don't find this personally offensive (both the vandalism AND the cover up) just gives additional credence to my belief that you are either a self-hating homo who believes that we should all be treated this way or you really aren't gay at all. In either event, you are a waste of my time and are going on ignore along with the other trolls. Bu-bye.

There ya go making false assumptions again. I did find it personally offensive. I just find your frenzied zealotry more offensive. Especially since it's because of rabid people like you that gay rights are being held back.

But I'm not surprised to see you posting foaming-at-the-mouth posts again. It's so Amyish.

And I do so look forward to your self-imposed inability to engage with me here (any response to me henceforth will just point out that you lied about putting me on ignore ). I find you rabidly borish beyond the scope of being any constructive use to the gay movement at all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Does the University management really expect people to accept without question that it is a normal and customary thing for them to have bottles of urine on their library shelves? I don't know of anything less likely to be there.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Does the University management really expect people to accept without question that it is a normal and customary thing for them to have bottles of urine on their library shelves? I don't know of anything less likely to be there.

Of course they do! They ARE egotistical, east coast arroganticrats, after all.

 

[DeeZire]

There's an episode of 30 Rock featuring slackers peeing into a bottle because they're too lazy to walk to the bathroom. Please understand, I'm not siding with the arroganticrats on this one, but there is precedence...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course they do! They ARE egotistical, east coast arroganticrats, after all.

Jeeze, Amy. If you want to be all homespun and cornpone, that's fine-- but this is the AUTHOR'S hangout, and you'd be amazed at how many of us authors have degrees and are proud of the work we put into getting them.

And more of us are east Coast than you might think, as well.

Intelligence is not your enemy. Knowledge is not your enemy. There are faults that show up in intelligent people but they are the same ones that stupid folk show-- arrogance being well among those.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Jeeze, Amy. If you want to be all homespun and cornpone, that's fine-- but this is the AUTHOR'S hangout, and you'd be amazed at how many of us authors have degrees and are proud of the work we put into getting them.

And more of us are east Coast than you might think, as well.

Intelligence is not your enemy. Knowledge is not your enemy. There are faults that show up in intelligent people but they are the same ones that stupid folk show-- arrogance being well among those.

and Jeeze, Stellaa... I also have a degree which I worked very hard for and I don't have an issue with them (assume much, hon????), but when an east coast Ivy League institution of alleged higher learning starts blowing shit at me, I have a tendency to not like it.

BTW, you know where you can shove your condescending "homespun and cornpone" crap don't you? That's right.... the same place you can shove your patronizing spiel about knowledge and intelligence.

 

[Stella_Omega]

and Jeeze, Stellaa... I also have a degree which I worked very hard for and I don't have an issue with them (assume much, hon????), but when an east coast Ivy League institution of alleged higher learning starts blowing shit at me, I have a tendency to not like it.

BTW, you know where you can shove your condescending "homespun and cornpone" crap don't you? That's right.... the same place you can shove your patronizing spiel about knowledge and intelligence.

yeah, when someone says "the East Coast Arrogantocracy" as if that's an explanation or something-- I do make some assumptions. . If you think I've made the wrong ones, prove me wrong. Show a little subtlety, a little consideration, a little bit of thought process, some conversational skills.

 

[Safe_Bet]

yeah, when someone says "the East Coast Arrogantocracy" as if that's an explanation or something-- I do make some assumptions. . If you think I've made the wrong ones, prove me wrong. Show a little subtlety, a little consideration, a little bit of thought process, some conversational skills.

I don't have to "prove" anything. If you don't like my words then don't read them.

I also don't have to "show" anything, even though both you and sr71plt have "shown" you are capable of spurious, ad hominem attacks. The two of you are acting no different that the person / people that threw piss on the books.

BTW, try some Midol, sweetie... it'll help with the cramping.

P.S. Say hi to sr71 seeing as how you are now both in the same ignore file...

 

[TE999]

I think we've established that one or more, if not all, of the Harvard librarians are piss freaks. I mean who else keeps bottles of urine around except maybe a Urologist?

Calling this incident an 'accident' strains all credulity.

Another thing that has me puzzled is where this happened. 'Hahvahd' is a bastion of ultra-Liberal thought...it's the last place you'd expect the defacing of books containing LGBT subject matter. That's like having a KKK frat house on campus.

 

[wet_special]

Here's my own thoughtful, (yeah yeah, read hateful) honest thoughts on the matter.

For all the intellectual depth and so on of all of us authors out there, I'm surprised no one pointed out so far that in a library, books are sorted on shelves based on category. So if someone's bottle of piss happened to get spilled on a row of books, chances are they'd all be the same category. In this case, LGBT.

Granted, when I refer to the "perp" as a he, it could be a he or a she.

Maybe one of the students was toting around a bottle of piss that he was working on filling for an art exhibit he was going to create, but he had to keep it handy at all times in order to, you know, save up enough. Piss ain't free, and it's something you can get arrested for asking for from strangers. (Thanks, lawyers and NEA, for making our world a better place)

It could be the dude was toting around a bottle of piss in case he had to add to his collection while he was studying for his finals at the library. And wouldn't you know it, ol' faithful made sure that bottle was full. All was fine and dandy and going to plan when he accidentally spilled it on books he was actually quite fond of reading. He was ashamed and tried to hide it, but (ding) when an investigation started he explained it to some administrators, they decided to cover it up on his behalf because he knew YOU would be coming at him with torches and pitchforks, and he didn't deserve that. (gosh, it almost sounds like I know too much!) Or he could have forgot it, left it there, and the next honest chap to come along said hey, an open bottle of mountain dew? Grabbed it, sniffed it, and hurled it away from himself as quickly as possible, accidentally dropping it.. Realizing he made a mess, he puts the bottle back where he found it and says I ain't cleaning this shit up and beats it out of there. Then go back to ding.

But let's say it was intentional, targeted vandalism. So now it's a hate crime?
If so, what is the perpetrator accused of hating, and can this be proven?

It could be a crime motivated by hate towards gays. Got it.

It could be a crime motivated by hatred of the political forces that seek to repeal DADT, or legalize gay marriage. I'm not saying I'm for or against those.

Could you tell the difference between these two possible motives alone?
To convict someone of a hate crime is to allow the "state" the power to 1) determine what thoughts are legal and 2) pretend to know what someone else is thinking.

Frankly I think it's just going a little too far. Others would call it lunacy or tyranny. Tammy Bruce wrote a good book on this a long time ago. I read it a long time ago. Hey, it's a free country. If you want thought crimes, you're flat out begging for Big Brother. You risk your kids inheriting a state where they have to turn in, um, YOU, for thought crimes. And they can do it on their smart phones. Yippee. Won't that be lovely. At least no one will be pissing on LGBT books. See you in the rice paddies of Oceania.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, I can tell you that safe-bet/amy fits snugly in the hater category.

 

[MagicaPractica]

There are a few things that make me wonder about the reports. First, it is variously reported that anywhere from 36 to 40 books were "soaked" with urine from a vial. I think the one report I found that said they had been damaged, or some such term, makes more sense. A single vial or even beaker would not "soak" that many books. Second, the reports seem to suggest that this was just "cleaned up." I don't think so. Any type of fluid spills in a library and it's a pain in the ass but urine or blood, any type of bodily fluid, means some very careful clean up because any type of school has had major rules about how spills of bodily fluids are handled since at least the early nineties. Third, if they don't know how the urine came to be there, how can they possibly rule out a hate crime?

I can definitely see a scenario where a librarian or other library worker who was shelving accidentally knocked over a container which had been left there by someone, for whatever reason. Most shelving in libraries are double sided metal shelving with open space down the center these days. If someone stuck a container on a shelf, perhaps above eye level, pushing a book into place while shelving would push it back and cause it to dump down the space, hitting quite a few books.

I suspect a more thorough explanation of what happened will appear in the next few days. I have faith in my fellow subversive librarians.

 

[wet_special]

You made sense up to this point:

Third, if they don't know how the urine came to be there, how can they possibly rule out a hate crime?

If you'll read my post, you'll see -- hate is thought. Hate crime is thought crime. Welcome to 1984.

 

[3113]

I don't think either is okay, but buying a crucifix and immersing it in a bottle of piss is not vandalism, while damaging or destroying books in a library is, whatever way you choose to do it.

SIGH! Box, please stop comparing apples and oranges--and PLEASE get over the damn work of avant guarde art which was a crucifix in piss.

One is FREE SPEECH. The other is VANDALISM. As you don't seem to know the difference, I'll explain it to you: if someone wants to sink a book on homosexuality--or a crucifix--into a tank of piss and take a picture of it, people might not like it, but the artist can do that and display it. It's their opinion as all art is. (By the way, are you so sure the crucifix in piss it's about hate? Maybe the artist is trying to prove that the crucifix can survive and inspire even when it's pissed on--maybe it proves the power of that image over all? Do you KNOW for sure what it's saying?).

Do you believe FREE SPEECH should be protected? If you do, then you shouldn't flash that little mad face over the fact that someone's opinion is not equal to a hate crime, however offensive you found it. Or do you want us to do as the Taliban does and jail or kill people for expressing their dislike of a religion?

As with all free speech, you're free to hate it and think the artist should not have done it, you're free to argue with the artist about it, too, speak out against his work, and create your own art to counter his. Either way, as it's the artist's crucifix (or book on homosexuality) he can do what he likes with it--and you don't have to look at the image or give money to the artist or the museum that houses his art.

Meanwhile, if someone throws piss on books in a library, they're not just saying what they think of those books, they're making sure books that don't belong to them can't be read by anyone. They are imposing their prejudice on everyone and hurting the university with their actions. This is VANDALISM. Just as someone walking into a church and splashing urine on that churches crucifix would be vandalism. An act of hate against them or something they espouse in particular.

Please try to keep the two separate from now on. Free Speech is NOT vandalism, and a picture of a crucifix in urine, however despicable to you, is not the same taking down a church's crucifix and tossing it into their toilet. This is why one is protected and allowed and the other is not.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, chances are very good it was vandalism--targeted at gay literature. Leaving a bottle of urine on a shelf for someone to knock over onto books is vandalism if someone intentionally did so. In a college environment, though, it's closer to a shallow-thought prank (while still being vandalism. A lot of "joke" pranks are mean-spirited vandalism). If doing it in the GLBT section was intentional (which is the likely conclusion), yes, it had some antigay expression behind it. But college students are notoriously shallow and follow-the-crowd about such things. So it's not exactly the tip of a Nazi conspiracy.

A remote possibility is that the bottle was moved from somewhere else by someone on the library staff who found it left somewhere else as part of some other intended prank/act of vandalism (or just as likely by some study-crashing student who didn't want to take the time to go to the head from his--most likely a his--study carrel. Which was certainly happening in university libraries the last time I worked in one) and then unintentionally spilled it--and innocently so--on the GLBT books. The university authorities seem to be pointing to something like that. Not too likely, but not impossible. And this doesn't have an "end-to-the-story" feel about it.

(But then, maybe the university authorities are quaking in their boots at the thought of a crazy lady descending on them from the West Coast with the avenging ax in her claws.)

That said, to go screamy memee about it from across the continent in anger and hate-filled tones that equal what is being claimed in bigotry of whoever did this is over the top and doesn't make the screamy memee any more noble (or less a bigot) than a college student who would intentionally do this.

Anger and hatred-obsessed posts like the OP (and followups) aren't going to do a damn thing about countering or changing anger and hatred-obsessed actions. They are just going to solidify assumptions on the other side and resistance to change for the better.

And to extrapolate that such an event is an earmark of East Coast intellectualism is downright idiotic and the mark of someone whose hatred, anger, and bigotry have driven them right over the edge of sanity.

 

[wet_special]

s7splat, for once we seem to agree. *shakes head sadly* Has one of us gone astray? Have you been taking your meds?? Someone tell me what is going on!

 

[sr71plt]

Well at some point I will have agreed with anyone taking time out from their radical political agendas to show a bit of common sense.