Churchill responds to DiStefano*

At Try-Works, so I'll just link to PB's post, where I saw it first. It's mostly the same old crap, but Churchill does have a few fresh feces to fling:

From start to finish, the interim chancellor's blatant conflicts of interest – not to mention the political nature of his biases – have been obvious to anyone who cared to view the matter honestly. So, too, the ways in which he has manipulated the process at every step in order to guarantee the outcome he announced on Monday, June 26. . . .

The interim vice chancellor's strikingly duplicitous comportment over the past 16 months will not go unchallenged. I will file an appeal of the whole charade with the Faculty Senate's Committee on Privilege and Tenure (P&T) within the next 10 days.

He'd better make that nine days, hadn't he? Then Churchill goes after the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct in those Trotskyite tones we've all learned to love:

In fact, each kind of academic misconduct the interim chancellor's carefully-selected panel claims I committed is engaged in by the panel itself in the writing of its report. (One of the panelists even takes credit for authoring a work unquestionably written by another scholar.)

That's a new one. Isn't it? Anybody know who he might mean?

Update: Once again Churchill uses Try-Works to get his message out. He's found his own level.

Update II: The Post is first with an AP story that gives Chutch's response in full.

Update III: And now the Rocky with an AP summary.

Update IV: Just commented over at PB (same post) that one thing newspaper reports have consistently done in the Churchill story is use the unacceptable shorthand that Churchill compared 9/11 victims to "a Nazi." Then I looked at the lead of the AP summary again.

*Well, PB has deleted Churchill's alleged statement, saying rightly (and with input from Snapple!) that its authenticity hasn't been confirmed, especially since Try-Works claims to have got it first but the Denver papers had it only an hour later. Neither Denver paper is questioning the document, though, and I'm leaving it up for now, but caveat lector.