No danger? Hill noted in her testimony that there was a genuine concern that there may not be a Federal Department of Education if Ronald Reagan managed to follow through on his campaign promises to abolish it. The department itself was brand-new, established in the latter half of the Carter adminsitration and seen (perhaps not entirely unfairly) by Republicans as a boondoggle. Reagan mentioned abolishment of the D of E in his first state of the union address. Hill was certainly in danger of losing her job, as was everyone else in the department.
You do realize that this moves you even further from the way you wish to be regarded, correct? And it proves my point, down to the last particle? Basically, you’re threatening to harass me in a sexual way against my will. You have no deniability here. Nor do you have the honor that you like to be perceived as having.
No, I can’t really say that I do realize it. On the contrary, you’ve made two basic claims:
That my hypothetical assuming Hill lied is unfair and one-sided;
That my treatment of you in the post 694 was sexist
I regard the first point as being completely refuted, and the second as absurd, although your accusation did cause me to toss some sexist barbs at you in post 698. Given your earlier inveighing against me in reasonably harsh terms, though, I can’t say that I’m especially contrite.
It’s been proven to anybody without a basis that Hill did not lie and Thomas did. So: wrong.
Your treatment was sexist. I have a news flash for you, bucko: I get to be the one who decides on what how treatment meted out to me is assessed, just as Anita Hill does. You and Shodan and whomever else can argue about teensy little technicalities, but as someone else noted of Shodan, if you have to do that, you don’t have a case. And you may think you are master of all knowledge, but you obviously don’t know anything about sexism. The type of shit you’re slinging around is just as much sexist as any racist who thinks ‘bell curve’ and ‘welfare queen’ will get him off the hook.
Your threat to write porn about me without my consent and because you can’t win without such shenanigans indicates that you are the absolute last person who should be discussing sexual harassment and its victims.
What’s disgusting and more than a little sad is that you simply don’t grasp that. You threatened to pornify a person. That’s vile, and if you had any honor you’d admit it. That was inappropriate and dishonorable.
What point do you think is escaping me? Your claim of “the 9/11 perps were safely based in Montreal” is blatantly untrue. I don’t recall a single person (including you) offering any evidence in support, and when confronted by a significant amount of contradictory evidence (part of which, I recall, being that none of the 9/11 hijackers had ever even been to Montreal, so you extended “perps” to include two peripheral actors with limited 9/11 connections who’d been here briefly but had since fled), your response was (as it is currently) to become childish about it, preferring the thumb-sucking comfort of your own lies to the scary maturing effect of reality.
When Shodan or Bricker or anyone else does this, I’ll call them on it, too. After this thread, I’ll go back to just ignoring you, until a similar chain of events occurs when you deserve to get called out again, having obviously learned nothing.
