McEwen said she thought that Hill and Thomas had a relationship. Are you capable of understanding that she might have been wrong?
For all we know Thomas might have insinuated that he was fucking Hill. Or she might have seen the private conversations when Thomas was asking her out repeatedly.
You really don’t understand that if McEwen was incorrect about an assumption doesn’t mean she’s lying?
That doesn’t follow. McEwan expressed the belief that Hill and Thomas were dating. It can be 100% true that McEwan believed this, even if Thomas and Hill weren’t dating, and Hill maintains they were not and I don’t know that Thomas ever said they were. Hill’s testimony describes Thomas wanting a social/sexual relationship which she consistently rebuffed, finally and reluctantly agreeing to have dinner with him on the last day of her employment at the EEOC, after which they separated to have only minimal contact for years afterward.
But this is her account, of course. Believe it as you choose.
Well, I’ll do a fast review of all your posts in this thread and be happy to go over them point-by-point.
See above. McEwen didn’t say they (Thomas and Hill) were having an affair. She said she *thought *they were having an affair.
If you think I’m banging Sonya from Accounting, whether I am or not has no bearing on if you saw me set fire to a car in a parking lot.
You’re thinking of Amber in Treasury…
(does anyone remember that thread, where someone was reference having a work dalliance with AiT and then a new Doper showed up with that name?)
And if he sees you always at Sonya’s desk, hears you constantly mentioning social events to her, sees you rest your hand on her shoulder, and overhears you discussing the size of the penises you saw in porn last night, it might just make it more likely that he thinks you are having sex with her.
It’s really not uncommon in sexual harrassment cases that other people in the office think that the harrasser is having sex with the harrassed. Because harrassers often tell people that, and their actions often create the impression that they are.
But it is much simpler to think that Anita Hill is a lying whore whose sole intention was to destroy the reputation of a good conservative.
I never touched Amber! Besides, she has that weird thumbnail, it’s way wider than tall… I mean she’s basically got a pig hoof.
Well, Thomas may have been, but Hill’s job performance deteriorated noticeably once she made the move to EEOC.
Thomas was well known for his willingness to mentor younger blacks during his tenure. That’s essentially how Hill got her first job with him - Gil Clancy, a friend of Thomas’ who knew that Hill was on her way out at the private law firm where she was working, called Thomas and asked him if he could help out. Thomas did so. +Hill apparently took this as a sign that she was one of his favorites, and followed him to EEOC. There, unfortunately, she had great difficulty getting up to speed on the new body of case law to be mastered, and several other officials at EEOC mentioned the low quality of her work.
In 1983 Thomas decided to create a position to supervise the lawyers on his staff. Hill wanted the job (falsely testifying that she had not tried to lobby for the job) but didn’t get it. It is this that triggered her decision to leave EEOC.
Interestingly, during that period, when Hill alleged that Thomas had been sexually harassing her for months, Hill told a new hire (Armstrong Williams)
Congressional Record, October 7, 1991, p. S14467
When did Thomas say that he and Hill had had sex?
Regards,
Shodan
When did I say that Thomas had said that he and Hill had had sex?
Here.
Regards,
Shodan
Now let’s look further. Where in that do I say that Thomas said that he and Anita Hill had had sex?
That’s right - nowhere.
I think I understand Shodan’s problem. He has no capacity to hold two thoughts at once. Everything must be distilled to a binary statement. On or off, yes or no. McEwen is correct about everything she says, even conjecture or she’s a liar. If you bring up an example of why something could be, you are saying that the example must have happened.
It would explain how Shodan isn’t stupid, but can’t hold complex thoughts. You’re asking a man with no arms to clap. He simply can’t engage in anything that requires mental finesse.
Back before such a thing as “marital rape” was legally recognized, women were raped by their husbands. By your logic, they (a) had a choice to stay in the marriage after being raped and (b) must have really wanted the rape, anyway, since they mostly stayed married.
Oh, I see - what you really meant to say was something like ‘Because harrassers often tell people that, and their actions often create the impression that they are, but this has nothing to do with the topic.’
Are there other allegations you have made that are also irrelevant?
Regards,
Shodan
Are you even aware that your argument is stupid?
Witness: I saw X happen. And I think Y happened.
Shodan: If Y didn’t happen, X is a lie.
Audience: You’re kind of fucking stupid aren’t you Shodan?
Isn’t there a Nascar forum you and your mullet can frequent?
No, what I meant to say is harrassers often tell people that they are fucking the person they are trying to fuck. And oddly enough, that is what I said.
Do I know if Thomas told people that? No. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. And given the description of the harrassment he imposed upon Ms. Hill, it is distinctly possible that someone viewing their relationship from outside would view them as having sex. Hence the second part of my comment. Try to keep up.
Logic? Don’t use words you clearly don’t understand.
I’m not sure I can dumb it down to your level, but here’s a hint - there was no compulsion in the Hill case. So your analogy is pretty much as stupid as the earlier thing about Elizabeth Smart.
For your analogy to work, in the days of marital rape, marriages would have dissolved automatically every so often, and the husband forced to pay alimony. Because Hill didn’t have to lift a finger to get away from the alleged harassment, and she could have kept her job at Education. But she chose to follow Thomas to EEOC.
I know this is probably over your head like a circus tent, but find someone smarter than you (which should be easy) and have that person explain it to you. Have him use a mallet if necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Is it your opinion that it is (a) encumbent on the victim to avoid sexual harrassment rather than the harrasser to stop sexually harrassing; and (b) that a victim should have to decide whether a job change she views as beneficial to her career should be rejected because of a desire to avoid sexual harrassment?
Apparently it is. Doesn’t seem we have gotten a long way from “bitch asked for it.”
Well, I went page-by-page doing a search for “Shodan”. It’s possible in my haste I missed something, but this is what I got. First the omnibus post from page 3:
I don’t see any cites supporting any of these statements, and several of them are unfalsifiable in any case.
Your follow-up was nine pages later:
I have no problem buying that Hill benefited from the fame that came from her public testimony. It’s a bit of a stretch, though, to suggest she lied in order to become famous. Your later posts back off from this implication (“She didn’t lie in order to get jobs”) which makes me wonder what relevance it had in the first place, except as innuendo.
There’s an important follow-up issue that is being missed, though. Another attorney at Wald, Harkrader & Ross (well, more accurately, an attorney at Pepper, Hamilton and Sheetz, which merged with WH & R in 1987) named Donald H. Greene filed his own affidavit pointing out that Hill and Burke hadn’t worked together at the firm, Hill’s performance was satisfactory and suggesting Burke may have confused Hill with another black woman who was fired and who did work with Burke.
As for Lillian McEwan, I’ve read the transcript of her Larry King interview and find she’s comically blasé about Thomas and porn. I agree with her - his interest in porn should have no bearing on his qualifications to be on SCOTUS. Men like porn. Duh.
McEwan has a number of theories about Hill’s and Thomas’s relationship, including the idea that Thomas wanted to use her to make Hill jealous or something, but I don’t see anything that disproves (and indeed quite a bit that tends to support) Hill’s testimony.
And Hill’s comments on her job security… I’ve read the transcript of her testimony and see nothing implausible:
[ul][li]She was concerned that there weren’t other job offers in her chosen field (not implausible)[/li][li]She was concerned about staying with the Department of Education, in light of the Reagan Administration’s known interests in eliminating this department (not implausible)[/li][li]She was concerned that if she made a big deal about leaving Thomas’s employ, he could easily sabotage her efforts to find other work (not implausible if you assume Thomas is a jerk)[/li][li]She held out the hope that his boorish behaviour would stop (wishful thinking, perhaps, but not uncommon or implausible)[/li][/ul]
I don’t see anything blatantly self-contradictory in Hill’s account, so to dismiss it, I’d have to see evidence she was lying or reason to doubt her credibility. I’m curious about your very first claim in this thread:
Such as…?
Aw, you’ve been attending the **Rand Rover **school of “phrases that hilariously apply to yourself” rhetoric.
Do you, or anyone, have an online link to this? My access to Congressional Record only seems to go back to 1993, and from looking through the transcripts of the hearings, I cannot find a transcript for hearings on October 7.