Several answers have been put forth already. My whole point was to consider what it might be, and several other posters have offered solutions I thought were good. I have, in fact, done more than hint at what it might be, I’ve outright suggested or agreed with several. Why aren’t you reading the thread before posting?
Except that I have specifically explained why the scenario doesn’t work that way several times now. Why aren’t you reading the thread before posting?
If you’d like to explain why you’re asking me to explain a position that not only did I not take (it was you with the face), but that I have now said two or three times in recent posts I did not take, and why therefore you’re clearly posting without reading, I would be pleased to read it.
And we are saying that these answers are no different than random chance. Sure, it’s cute to suggest something practical (commute time) and something silly (a Halo tournament), but neither is any more logical than flipping a coin when it comes to choosing the best applicant for a job.
The same could be asked of you. Why aren’t you reading the replies that state that a logical reading of your OP (and your responses) requires the candidates to be equal? As we’ve said countless times, if they’re unequal, it breaks the hypothetical.
If you don’t believe in the position, and you agree it was more or less window dressing for your OP, why include it at all? Especially when last name tells us nothing about a candidate beyond… wait for it… their last name.
Yes, it’s quite remarkable how many posters in your threads (this one, and others in the past) somehow haven’t read the thread. It’s as though we’re all reading one thread, and you’re reading a completely different one that exists on some other plane, or perhaps in your own head.
Oddly, I find this little philosophical pas de deux has grown tiresome. You can shrug, dig your finger into your dimpled cheek, and bat your eyelashes all you want, while coyly insisting that you’re ever so surprised! that people would assume there’s some agenda behind your doe-eyed questioning. You clearly had a predetermined point to make in defense of AA, even though you prefer to continue your ersatz-Socratic tap dance rather than state it outright.
Never been a fan of tap dancing. Best of luck on your voyage of intellectual discovery, and let me know how Jones works out for you.
Vinyl Turnip, you have accused me of things which are false. You need to stop dancing around and back them up. How do you answer the things I said between what you quoted? How do you answer to the fact that you asked me to defend an argument I never made about diversity? How do you answer to the fact that I have actually ACCEPTED RESPONSES which you have declared impossible and insisted I would never accept? Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertions? Your position is so strong, why not blow us all away disproving me? It would be very impressive, especially with the amount of condescending posturing you’re doing. Pretty soon, I’m going to go through myself and quote all the stuff you ignored or never read which clearly shows how little substance there is to your accusations, but I’m giving you a chance to back your talk up first.
And what the hell are you talking about, other threads? I wasn’t even posting for six months. This is my first thread in a long time, and I can’t remember ever encountering this much apparently willful ignorance before. If you can show me how I have a pattern of it, please do so, or else once again, you’re just blowing smoke.