:rolleyes:
So, even though Brock later tells us that his earlier claims were a bunch of right-wing bullstuff, we should accept the bullstuff and ignore his recantation of the same because…? Why, exactly, other than it undermines your point?
Brock is a liar. No question. But the question is whether he was lying then or lying now.
I think you’re inclined to believe his current incarnation because he switched to your side.
I don’t know, myself, except to note that Hill’s story has been called into question by many others, and they have evidence as well.
Because it is extensively cited and documented from the facts presented before the committee.
Regards,
Shodan
What about the part where you said Paula Jones was not lying? And here, you need to show that she was not lying about harrasment, not about sex with Bill.
Wow…There were actual citations to things!?! That’s enough to convince me.
I know you know that Brock says it was all bullshit and you still don’t care, but it is nonetheless fun to compare how highly you hold this work in comparison to how the author feels about it:
Is any further comment really necessary?
You are confusing Paula Jones with Monica Lewinsky, I believe. Paula never claimed that she had had sex with Clinton. She claimed that he exposed himself to her and “requested” oral sex from her, and she declined. IIRC, she also accurately described some distinguishing marks on parts of Clinton’s body that, if he had never exposed himself in her presence, she would not have known about.
If you would like merely to put it down to a “he said, she said” situation, I would say that you should consider which one of the parties to the case was found by a judge to have made “intentionally false and misleading statements” under oath, and was disbarred as a result.
Sorry, I am not talking about feelings. I am discussing matters of fact.
This is a false statement.
The book relies extensively on Anita Hill’s own sworn testimony, and that of her defenders. All matters of established fact - not something that can be dismissed with a casual “he’s changed his mind, so it doesn’t count.”
Not unless you have anything more substantive than “everything Brock says is a lie, except lately”.
Regards,
Shodan
There seem to be some competing ideas here… a sense that the courts ruled against her lawsuit, so Paula Jones must have lied.
IN fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. The decision dismissing Ms. Jones’ complaint assumes that her allegations were completely true.
This was not the result of any fact-finding – in other words, you may not point to this assumption as any sort of substantive evidence that her allegations were true.
It was, instead, a classic reason for summary judgement: to say, “We don’t need to go to trial and find facts here, because even if all of the plaintff’s facts were found to be true, there is still no liability on the part of the defendant.”
Even if Paula Jones’ claims were completely and utterly true, they didn’t describe harrassment. Rude and boorish behavior - yes. But every instance of rude and boorish behavior is not actionable harrassment. Ms. Jones alleged no tangible employment detriment. She alleged no quid-pro-quo. Her allegations did not rise to a “hostile work environment.” In short, even if she spoke nothing but the gospel truth, that truth did not describe sexual harrassment.
Presenting your opinions about the book as fact does not make them fact. And, given that the actual author of the book now has opinions about the supposed evidence in the book that are much lower than yours, I would find it hard to understand why we are to believe yours over his.
You’ll note that he doesn’t so much say that he himself lied but rather that he reported other people’s claims without any verification and giving only one side of the story.
And sorry if I find it hard to believe that someone unerringly told the truth in the past but has now decided to lie and say that he was being untruthful (or, more accurately, using very selective and crudy reporting) when he was in fact being diligent and truthful back then in the past but has only chosen to lie and deceive now.
Just because a bunch of jerks grandstand doesn’t mean they have legitimate claim to anything.
True. Extensive documentation and citations are what establish things as fact.
Because those matters that can be established as fact have been established. The author’s desire to weasel out does not affect whether or not the facts are true or not.
Brock may wish mightily that he never wrote the book. Insofar as the book proves facts, his later wishes do not affect the truth value of the book.
“I wish I had never said that” is not the same as “I was lying”. If what you said was factually accurate, it does not become false simply because you now wish it were. Reality doesn’t work that way.
Right, and I already pointed out that this is not the case. Brock reported Anita Hill’s claims, from her own testimony and that of supporting witnesses.
I’ve read the book. If Brock is alleging that Anita Hill’s testimony was unreliable, or that her friends were completely mistaken about the time frame they claim to have been so sure about, this does not establish that the book is incorrect. That is exactly what the book was maintaining all along. Anita Hill’s account is at significant variance from facts otherwise established. This is not based on David Brock’s opinion, but on what was established as true.
Brock may certainly wish all he likes that he never showed this to be the case. But unless he can establish that Anita Hill did not say what his book claims she said under oath, then his desire to take it all back does not alter what has been shown to be true. What Anita Hill said under oath is a matter of public record.
There is no reason you should. Believe Brock when he proves what he says, and disbelieve him every other time. He admits that his word is not reliable. Thus it makes sense to assume he is lying, until he proves otherwise. In his book, he proves otherwise.
The truth of a statement is independent of the speaker.
Regards,
Shodan
Except that Brock himself explains how he proved no such thing. In fact, he says:
Without reading the book and researching it myself, of course, I cannot arrive at a truly independent assessment of his reporting in that book. However, given the conflicting claims of you and him, with you saying that it was much better than he says it was (and given the previous experience I have had with you being very “creative” and partisan in how you view evidence), I would tend to believe him for now. If someone wants to believe you, that is of course their perogative.
That’s not the correct question.
Remember Sir Arthur Clarke’s statement: “One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” How did we ever let that happen is the correct question.
Let’s be fair. Friend Shodan claims to have independent verification of facts that prove Ms. Hill to be a liar. Very well, all he need do is produce them.
I followed the Hill/Thomas debacle as did many, in the final analysis, it seems to be to end up a “he said, she said” type situation. My own inclinations lead me to prefer her side to his, but I accept that this is not incontrovertible, doubt exists. This is where the matter stood when Thomas was confirmed, and, to my knowledge, has not changed since. Mr. Brock’s journey into the light of reason, however commendable, does not alter any facts.
Shodan claims to have these facts at his fingertips, but is apparently reluctant to offend and embarass us by presenting them. Let us reassure him of our good opinion, and invite him to bring forward these incontrovertible facts. We are made of sterner stuff, he need not worry about hurting our feelings, or sending us reeling in dismay.
We thank him for his kind concern, and will hold him blameless. When he brings forth those facts. Which he has. At his fingertips. Yes. Quite.
I’m sure it’s true, especially among those who dismiss the book without having read it or knowing anything about it.
:shrugs:
And I’m the one being “creative” with the evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
More to the point, you are being very economical with the evidence. In that, thus far, called to present such evidence you decline. In so doing, you invite the presumption that you do not, in fact, possess such evidence. A presumption that you can dispel instantly, by the simple expedient of producing some.
And your point is? Yes, I admit that I haven’t read the book and researched its accuracy and thus cannot arrive at an independent assessment.
However, that does not mean that I have no choice but to believe your assessment, especially when we have a record of your assessment of other evidence that we have studied more closely and when your assessment of the evidence is much, much more glowing than the author’s own current assessment of the evidence that he had presented in that book.
And, of course, as elucidator points out, you have given us no evidence to support your own assessment. And, I need only to remind myself (for example) of your amazing ability to know objectively, with absolute certainty, what the Second Amendment means (even if your interpretation flies in the face of interpretations by many learned judges and scholars) in order to decide how much to trust your judgement on these matters.
I suspect Shodan will have evidence of Ms. Hill’s evildoings right after he finishes producing evidence of Saddam’s thousands of tons of illicit WMDs.
I thought your assumption was that the whole book was a lie. Now you are alleging that you “cannot arrive at an independent assessment”.
My point is that you are dismissing the book without having read it. And accusing others of selective reading of facts.
Entirely true. Nobody can force you to examine evidence if you would rather not.
Well, I’ve read the Second Amendment. Therefore it would seem that my opinion of it is worth something more than your opinion of Brock’s book.
Be that as it may, I am not asking you to trust my judgement. If you don’t know about something, and don’t want to know, it is not going to be much of a discussion.
Regards,
Shodan
Well that seems to be a reading comprehension issue on your part since there is nowhere did I say what you thought my assumption was. And, I already told you that I couldn’t arrive at an independent assessment in post #71, a post that you subsequently responded to in a previous post to your latest one.
Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than research the factual correctness of (and compellingness of the evidence in) books that even the author of the book no longer will vouch for.
And, I guess you have decided that you have better things to do than to show us in this thread all of this compelling evidence from the book, which is fine with me but then don’t expect us to take your word that Anita Hill lied about the whole thing.