Once upon a time, I would. But then I realized that no matter how earnest and willing the showhorse is, it can’t learn algebra.
Can’t remember where I read it, but I think she’d had death threats, and presumably Brandeis campus security asked her to keep them posted on developments.
OK, that’s weird; I was a-Googling to try to find where I’d read about death threats and my previous post came up! About 30 seconds after I posted it! Since when does Google crawl that fast?
Does that mean your post is legitimately now your cite? 
First you and a friend have to carry your argument across the street like a large pane of glass, so Shot From Guns can squeal around the corner on two wheels and smash through it.
What if neither of them does? My only opinion regarding apologies is that Virginia Thomas stands to lose more than she gains if she keeps poking the apology beast, though I understand why she may not feel that way.
You know, it would be much faster if you’d just admit that you have no good way of refuting my perfectly valid points. Look, I’ll even quote them back for you, so you can be embarassed again. (Dammit, would you believe I’m actually missing the nested quotes for once?)
IIRC, she forwarded the voicemail to Campus Security in case it was an issue and THEY forwarded it to the FBI…
I’ll play along…
Why do you think she believed it was a violation of federal law?
The same tawdry reason he assumes she was lying about Thomas.
Same way he’s conveniently ignoring all of the valid objections I’ve raised to his dead-wrong nitpicking.
I don’t think that is fair. I don’t think Bricker anywhere said he thought or assumed she was lying. He said that in a situation where Hill had deliberately lied, then asking for an apology would not be tone deaf.
I seem to remember him later saying that he did not think she had actually lied, but instead believed her testimony, though it wasn’t necessarily the full truth.
Yes - post #346
She might have considered it to be stalking or threatening.
Not ignoring. Just out trying to jump-start the goalpost mover.
A lot of responses in this thread! There seems wide agreement that Mrs. Thomas is tone-deaf or stupid. Since it’s BBQ Pit, I think I’m allowed to hijack and focus on a key underlying question: which of Thomas or Hill was lying?
With a math background, I use Bayesian analysis to guess the answers to questions like that. On that basis it seems more than a thousand times as likely that Thomas was lying rather than Hill. (Perhaps such analysis would be prohibited in jury deliberations, but that’s beside the point.)
(1) Many of us have witnessed male behavior much ruder than anything Thomas was accused of. And of course, he’ll deny it, whether true or false.
(2) If Hill was lying, what was her motive? She wasn’t particularly interested in politics, but even if she were, why ruin her career? Only a psychopath would pursue such a lie.
The right-wing hack David Brock authored a book attempting to demonstrate that Hill had lied. Brock later repudiated the book, calling himself a right-wing hack and admitting it was lies. (I mentioned this to a right-wing idiot; he answered “How do you know he’s not lying now?” There’s a logic fallacy there, but I can’t put my finger on naming it or explaining it briefly.)
I’m not sure Hill regarded Thomas’ inept flirtations as a “great wrong.” Wasn’t she coerced into testifying at all? His subsequent lies wronged her, but she obviously understood he felt he had little choice.
He said … she said … no other witneesses. IANAL, but I think any judge (or Senate committee) would have to vote for innocence. That hardly proves Hill was lying. Instead, as I explained above, unless you have evidence that Hill was an imbecilic psychopath, her story was almost certainly based on truth.
And look who gets the answer wrong again, as usual.
Wow - way to cut up a post to totally misrepresent its meaning. This is what I actually said…
It makes it absolutely bloody obvious I am talking in the hypothetical there. That’s really disingenuous of you.
Hey, Bricker, if you’re looking to put your nitpicking legal skills to better use, you might have fun over here, where a new moron is claiming that “Obamacare, social security, medicare, [and] the Department of Energy” all violate the Constitution.
Hahahaha. Honestly, after all this time, you’d think he’d have bulked up enough to haul them around by hand.
Actually this seems to be pretty standard for a number of Republicans (see healthcare legislation). To them compromise and bi-partisanship means “You agree with our point, admit that you were wrong and do what we say.”
Calling someone out of the blue before 8AM on a saturday morning, after twenty years, and asking them to pray about some shit or other, is however, a good indicator that you’ve a few loose screws rattling around in your skull. Well, that or run a lobbying organization in need of some free national publicity.
Crazy, unethical, or both, those seem to be the possibilities with regard to Ginni Thomas.
I apologize. Anyway, it was not my intent to disagree with you, but rather to use an excerpt as a pivot for a sincere question: Did Hill think Thomas had done a “great wrong” to her, or was her testimony instead the result of pressure?