Reply #181: A better analogy would be "fishing expedition"

[Tansy_Gold]

In general, the term "witchhunt" is used to describe an action to bring down a non-existent enemy, or one that only exists in the minds of the hunters.

Most of us who are not defending Churchill's apparent copyright infringements are not hunting for witches; we are discussing the evidence so far presented that Churchill may have infringed on the copyrights held by others. That is not a "witchhunt" by any means.

A "fishing expedition," on the other hand, suggests that there's a possibility of a genuine catch, rather like what AG Phill Kline is doing in Kansas. However, since no one appears to have subpoenaed all of Churchill's academic papers or grading reports or computer hard drives or library borrowing records, I'd dare to suggest this isn't even a real fishing expedition.

Otherwise, one would have to label the Mails' heirs and Fay Cohen witch-hunters just because they are defending their own rights against an infringer. Cohen's case apparently predates the alleged RW witchhunt, so that would seem to exonerate her; the Mails case seems to have come about independently of the RW/CU assault on Churchill.

Is it part of a case being built against him? Well, yeah, I think so. Is it justified? Well, probably in the minds of those who are building it. Will they be successful? That remains to be seen.

But it appears to me that Churchill has provided them with the evidence. If in fact he has been academically and intellectually lazy or dishonest, is that the fault of the people who are accusing him?