The more basic point about **Bricker **is his refusal to explore any other “assumption”, and his pouting when this one got blown up in his face.
prr, getting the fuck out of Oklahoma does count for something, doesn’t it?
The quote presented in post 18, from the Washington Post, said in pertinent part:
If it were a prank, what federal law was implicated? If it were some kind of security issue, what federal law was implicated? In short – why involve the FBI?
It’s funny that you can’t imagine—or are refusing to consider—the context of the time, or her position. He was Chairman of the EEOC. What is that, exactly? He was harassing her, and he was in charge of the federal agency charged with preventing…sexual harassment. if it was that bad for her at the EEOC, where else would she go? Where else could she go?
It’s a quote from a letter from Armstrong Williams, as mentioned. I am also having trouble searching the Congressional Record, where I never went before, but I was able to locate the reference (although not the text).
It’s here. The reference is
I’m not sure how I can go about retrieving the text. If you have any suggestions…
Here is a cite of what Williams said to the press during the hearings.This is an indication of what Williams thought at the time. If that’s any help.
Like I said, I don’t know how to go about retrieving the actual text, and I am not going to pay money for it. But there it is, with the reference number and author as described, and with the correct subject and heading. If that helps, great, if not, oh well.
Regards,
Shodan
What makes you think it was possible that it was a prank? Oh, right, it’s you.
Look up “Federal Interstate Stalking Law” sometime, Counselor.
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
No, and no, respectively.
What I would say is, if a person claims someone is sexually harassing her, and it turns out that she followed him from place to place, then that is an indication that maybe she wasn’t being sexually harassed.
Regards,
Shodan
Why don’t you read the article and find out? She turned it over to campus security with a request that they might turn it over to the FBI to ascertain whether or not it was someone pretending to be Ginni Thomas. But go ahead, argue her bad faith, which is pretty much your entire argument here.
I want to live in your happy world, where being sexually harassed by the chairman of the EEOC means you can easily find a new job in your field when you’re a black woman…Oh, wait, that’s right. That’s not the world you live in.
Which leaves out how you tried to pass off hearsay as a direct quote. And?
I figured it out as soon as I read the title!
What do I win!?
The problem being, Hill had a job, at the Department of Education. She was in no danger of losing that job - the part where she claimed otherwise was a lie.
So she didn’t have to find a new job after being sexually harassed by anyone. She had a job, and she could have kept it and ended the alleged harassment by doing nothing.
Instead, she chose to go with Thomas to EEOC, giving up a secure position in order to do so. If Thomas’ harassment was so unpleasant, why should she do that? Whereas, if he were a good boss, it makes sense.
So that’s the world I live in - where you draw conclusions as to the truth or otherwise of people’s statements based on how well they agree with what is reasonable.
Regards,
Shodan
And, you are apparently about as bright as belly button lint.
Welcome back to the SDMB, by the by.
Regards,
Shodan
Oops, wrong thread.
Do I still win something!?
Criminy, you’re thick.
If the claim is that a certain car battery works no matter how low the temperature is, then the logical way to test that claim is to lower the temperature as low as you can get and see if the battery works, and then see if the battery cranks.
So now let’s take a peek inside our testing facility, shall we?
(INT, laboratory setting. TOM and MIKE are discussing their upcoming experiment.)
TOM: So when the dual freezers have the temp down to about twenty below, we’ll run the first test.
MIKE: Yep. I wish we could get it even colder.
(enter a shrieking, dishelved character with a mad look in the eyes: MARGIN)
MARGIN: Stop! You guys claim you’re fair and impartial?
(TOM and MIKE glance at each other.)
MIKE: Uh… yes?
TOM: Yeah, pretty much.
MARGIN: Why are you testing this battery at such a cold temperature? It’s unfair!
TOM: Um… because the manufacturer claimed their battery would work no matter what temperature it was.
MARGIN (visibly upset): But why don’t you just test it in normal temperatures, huh? It’s because you’re unfair!
MIKE: We have. But there’s no real debate about how it will perform in normal temperatures.
TOM: Yes. You see, Margin, the key to testing a statement like that is to expose it to the strongest counter-example and see if it still holds. If it does, then we can regard the weaker cases as being proved, too.
MARGIN: Unfair!! Unfair!!
(Curtain)
Answer the charge, or be damned as a lying sack of shit.
Thank you. The VA strikes again; they disdiagnosed one thing it led to a cascade of emergency surgeries and medication errors. The thanks of a grateful nation!
Now, back to business, and combining two posts in one:
-
You think that it wasn’t really bad harassment, or harassment in general, if she followed Clarence Thomas. “She had a new job,” you said. Which ignores the central point: your belief that staying in a job means that the harassment either didn’t happen or wasn’t that bad.
-
You passed off hearsay as a direct quote by Anita Hill. Explain that.
Obviously you’re not a golfer.
Also, dude, Shodan is not the preferred nomenclature. Artificial Person-American please.
CMC fnord!
Except we’re not talking about something which can tested in a laboratory setting, and oh by the way? Your constant use of sexist slurs really doesn’t help you in a discussion where once again, you used a sexist hypothetical about Anita Hill being a lying bitch, and comparing Ginni Thomas’ demand for an apology to a rape victim’s justified demand for an apology for something that actually happened. Instead, you choose to characterize me the the way…why, you used almost the exact same type of language David Brock used: “A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” You didn’t work around to calling me a slut or anything, but given the contemptuous terms you sprinkle through your ‘debates’ it’s probably just an oversight. And do, do argue on technicalities about how using words like ‘shreiking’ and ‘a mad look’ in the eye aren’t the same as calling someone nutty. I’m looking forward to yet another long-winded, tunnel-visioned lecture on how you’re the authority on all things logical and sane and reasonable, even while you can’t seem to grasp that your fixation on minutiae doesn’t prove your case by any means.
In other words, you have no case, so you resort to misdirection.
That’s correct, but the method of examining the claim doesn’t change. The claim was that regardless of whether you felt Hill was lying or telling the truth, Thomas’ action was tone deaf.
How do you discuss such a claim? Obviously the same way that Mike and Tom tested their battery: by subjecting the claim to the extreme case it claims. As I acknowledged early on, if we assume Hill was telling the truth, it’s an easy case to analyze; clearly Thomas has nothing to stand on. But that’s not what was meant by “regardless of how you feel.” Assuming Hill was telling the truth does not meaningfully test “regardless of how you feel.”
It’s true that “Margin,” in my little play is not portrayed sympathetically, and I’ll even cop to the fact that this character is supposed to represent you. Somehow, you cracked my clever code. Finally, yes, I admit the character - and you - are called nutty.
But unless you found the discarded draft on my office floor which has you, Tom, and Mike, engaging in a hot hree-way with DP and ass-to-mouth scenes, I’m going to have to deny the charge that I made your character in any way slutty.
But I’m happy to rectify that in Scene 2, where the laboratory supervisor and his pet Doberman arrive for a visit. How will Margin convince him not to test the battery? We can only imagine.
Hey, you were given plenty of reasons why you were wrong, so your rolleyes is only for yourself. As I figure it, any time you ridicule someone for clinging to an obviously wrong claim, you deserve to be reminded of your “the 9/11 perps were safely based in Montreal”, an entirely laughable claim on its face.
The main reason I still remember this after all this time is that Montreal is my home city and you’ve said nothing that I know of that was sufficiently clever or insightful enough to replace “safely based perps” in my perception of you. I’m especially reminded when you mention something tenuously[sup]*[/sup] related to 9/11.
[sup]*[/sup] Iraq and 9/11 aren’t really related, but they get jammed together a lot
Yabut, Elvis didn’t claim it was a joke, see.