Sorry. Your rant. Your unsupported asssertions–repeated ad nauseam with a lot of vitriol spilling over onto posters who asked polite questions.
Not my job to do your homework.
As to running down the scores for Ms. Wilson’s class, they are really irrelevant to my question, (although not to your rant).
No one has provided evidence that Ms. Wilson’s written scores were low. However, even if the physical test standards were lowered, (a point not entered into evidence), she failed those physical tests. Some person or agency has to have deliberately ignored failing test scores. As a professional in that industry in that region, I would expect you to be all over the press and the agencies demanding to know who actually did that, thus potentially jeopardizing your life the next time you answered a joint call. Instead, you simpy wanted to come vent to an anonymous audience that has no power to change the conditions in your region about a situation (deliberate, department-wide, lowered physical standards) for which you have inadequate evidence that it even exists.
Whatever.
You have not provided a single shred of evidence that the physical requirements have been adjusted. The written tests and background checks keep being cited, but they were actually changed by legislation or executive fiat. Where is the similar reference to changes in the physical requirements–requirements that Ms. Wilson flunked?
You are asserting that after making a big deal to “lower the standards” in two categories for candidate selection, “someone” (that you apparently have a need to be a mayor) has also managed to lower the physical requirements and no one has seen fit to blow the whistle on that mayor.
In every department where I have seen this sort of fight, there is always someone willing to talk off the record and always a well coifed TV reporter who wants to make a big deal of this sort of thing during sweeps week or curmudgeonly metro desk newspaper reporter who is angling for a Pulitzer who wants to grumble about it for a few weeks each year.
Note that I have not once said that the “diversity” angle could not possibly be true. I am simply amused by your persistent anger that people would have the audacity to ask questions about the cheesecloth on which you have painted your ire.
Well, I guess that excepting political pittings, where the readers are registered voters in the US and choose to exercise their power to change things at the polls, the Pit may as well be closed for all other business. Just what it the Pit for, then?
Oh, I don’t know: simpy seems like a valid coinage to me, given the simp-like context.
Did you mean, you wanted your diatribe to be a referendum among US registered voters? Good choice, 'cause most of them like the idea of local control over their emergency response network. Well, except for one thing: most people hate for local control to cover for racial, religious or sexual bigotry. Oops, I guess. Since there’s no race-based cover anymore for recruit Wilson’s retention, you may not be interested in an honest assessment of your race-based charges of favoritism. And that’s probably the way it should be.
Meanwhile, there’s always the possibility that some poster will come up with a novel yet useful way of classifying you. And that would be worthwhile.
Once again, you’re mistaken. Do I desire you to join me? As Jules in Pulp Fiction said,
Dissent is welcomed, and there are times that well articulated viewpoints on the SDMB have given me pause to reconsider, however yours was not among them. You weren’t satisfied with offering another viewpoint. A hijack attempt regarding drug laws in the US and other pernicious pedantry earned you my rebuke, along with that of another Doper.
Apparently, you’re determined to have the last word, so go for it.
