Comments on: Felner Retaliated Against Critics While at UIUC

By: Observer

Observer — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:03:31 +0000

Well, it would have been nice to hear the disposition of the case, for whatever reason. However, the complaint sounds much like the usual disgruntled ex-employee type of thing where no one can really tell what has happened. People who lose their jobs can engage in paranoid fanatasies about why they were singled out–even if they know about huge budget cuts or what the process was. In my experience, such stories are valid maybe 10% of the time… or BOTH the employer and employee are somewhat unbalanced.

In this case, if Professor Rappaport said that he made the decision, I would be inclined to believe him, given that Felner was unpopular and about to be bumped from his own job shortly (as other entries show). Why lie for him?

By: jake

jake — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:08:01 +0000

Oh please, who ever claimed we were journalists who were fair and balanced in the Fox News sense?

Uh, the suit was tossed because it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations– NOT because it didn’t have merit.

Keep assuming that we’ve already reached conclusions. And keep making retarded ass anonymous comments. Drives up pageviews and dollars.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:00:46 +0000

You cited the quote in a damning way about Felner, without mentioning that the plaintiff himself found out when he deposed one of the defendant’s under oath that Felner in fact wasn’t involved. That’s just crappy, misleading journalism, period.

“Not because the claim didn’t have merit.” So you have decided it has merit, courts be damned, because it fits the conclusions you have already jumped to about Felner?

By: jake

jake — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:52:50 +0000

Yeah, threw it out because they waited longer than two years to file suit. Not because they claim didn’t have merit.

And that court doc doesn’t prove Felner didn’t have anything to do with anything. If you’ve followed the Felner saga, you’d recognize just how common that sort of thing is for Felner.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:47:55 +0000

Many in the mainstream media would at least try to summarize the document fairly, accurately and completely. You don’t mention that the court ruled against the plaintiff who made the allegation. Immediately after the damning quote about Felner you cite, the court writes:

> On November 16, 1998, Mitchell deposed Rappaport in connection with his February 22, 1994 complaint. During this deposition, Mitchell learned that, in fact, Rappaport himself had made the decision, in conjunction with the approval of Donchin, to terminate the funding for Oasis Graphics Arts.

“Rappaport himself had made the decision.” In other words, it WASN’T Felner. Another clue, in case you missed it, is that Felner wasn’t named as a defendant.

See that, blogger? That’s what happens when you try.

By: WC

WC — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:39:51 +0000

So Jake, what IS C-J’s excuse? Do they think they are above printing “f—— Felner”? Afraid of offending UofL? Nah…they’ve done that! Afraid of offending McConnell? Nah, they’ve done that… Afriad of a little work?