My guess is that your cite is to the daily not the permanent record. Generally people cite to the permanent record, but that’s not a big deal.
You say the quote is from an interview? Is there a transcript from it? Because it just seems odd the cite is word for word the same as from the book, with that being the only Google result from it. Now Google isn’t perfect, obviously.
But this isn’t about an error. Unless I am totally misunderstanding what you said, you knew when you posted it that it wasn’t a quote from Anita Hill, but instead was from Armstrong Williams. How do you justify your attribution of the quote to Ms. Hill?
What else would Thomas say? I am starting out and I have a pretty good job, but my boss is a porn loving harasser. It would have ended her career. Plenty of employees will praise their boss to the top execs because they know that is the smart thing to do. That does not mean that they believe what they have to say. Politicians do it all the time. People in subservient position have to do it to keep their jobs.
Because I thought it was a quote from a letter written by Armstrong Williams in which he quoted Anita Hill. It turns out that it was a paraphrase by Armstrong Williams of what Anita Hill said, which is identical in sense and meaning to the letter that was read into the Congressional Record.
So basically, yes, you are misunderstanding what I said. I did not know it was not a direct quote from Anita Hill. It was Williams’ reporting of a quote from her. He described what she said in an interview, and also in a letter. Both descriptions were identical.
First, I still cannot get over you thinking it is appropriate to use a quote box and attribution for something that wasn’t a quote. If you were looking to cite, you should have cited to the book, The Real Anita Hill, because that is where you got the information from. You could have said…
“As David Brock wrote in The Real Anita Hill, Hill told Williams that ‘it was great to be working for Thomas, because he was fair, he had so much integrity, he hired women, he was the ideal boss.’”
But you didn’t. You instead claim it is something Hill directly said. I don’t see that as anything but deliberate, and it is just unjustifiable to do.
And to claim that this is identical to what is in the letter is completely false. It has a similar meaning, but, for example, the letter never used the word integrity, and never said Thomas was an “ideal boss.” They aren’t identical descriptions, even though the meaning is similar.
But bottom line is you attributed a report from someone else as a direct quote from the person. Even if Williams was accurately quoting Hill, it would still be disingenuous to present it as you did. Given that there is significant potential for dispute over Williams’ accuracy, it’s downright dishonest of you.
I’m sure you’ll just shrug this off as partisan attacks, but I’m incredibly disappointed someone would try to pull this sort of crap off, and maybe even more disappointed at their weasling after.
If I were to change the attribution on this quote to Shodan, and make it first person instead of third, I could be warned or even banned from this board. The fact that you, Shodan, think it’s meaningless that you did the same thing with an off-board source says a lot about your character, you disgusting ball of slime.
Shodan, you have **Bricker **and **Dio **appealing to you for reason. That’s gotta tell you something…
…as for me, I think I need to check that thermometer I stashed in Hell to see if it froze over…
Sure there’s a difference. That’s why, the moment it became clear, I withdrew the statement and apologized. I don’t expect it to have much effect on the Usual Suspects; they would rather have their tantrums.
Actually, a quote of Armstrong Williams of Anita Hill.
The fact that you think less of me is not that much of a drawback - just the opposite, in fact.
Shouldn’t you be calling me a homophobe, and complete the racist/sexist/homophobe trifecta?
Just a suggestion, since your ability to think seems to have been compromised by a serious case of cranio-rectal inversion.
That doesn’t answer my question. What happens to someone whose government department gets downsized or eliminated? Even if Hill would continue to draw a government paycheck, where would she end up working? Would it be fair to say it might not be work she finds interesting or good for her career?
I assume you can read, which is why I don’t understand why my quoting of his 1982 SOTU address including a line specifically mentioning cutting the Department of Education is being ignored. There’s nothing “general” about that. Should Reagan have been taken seriously or not? Should a career-minded person working at the Department of Education be concerned or not?
It’s only problematic if one assumes all issues should be decided in hindsight. Is that the standard you want to use?
Who is “they” and what relevance does this have?
That is by no means clear. One attorney at the firm (Burke) described her being asked to leave, and another attorney (Donald Greene) quickly stepped in and disputed this, describing how they had no records Burke and Hill had worked together, but Burke had worked with a different black woman who was asked to leave (PDF cite, for the second time). If your argument relies on the premise that Hill’s work record was spotty, be advised that the solidity of this premise is in question.
I’ll assume this is true with a shrug. Getting jobs through friends and acquaintances is hardly unusual.
If there’s sworn testimony by witnesses describing this version of events, I look forward to reading it.
How much of this and the previous paragraph can be independently verified, i.e. by a source other than David Brock?
When I said Hill had plausible reason to believe the Department of Education might be abolished, I supplied supporting evidence. What you’ve written is more akin to a novel in which Hill is one of your characters.
How much of your documentation comes from Burke or people quoting Burke? Documentation alone doesn’t make a fact true.
I see no reason to revisit or reconsider my earlier “solid refutation” stance.
You were quoting from The Real Anita Hill by David Brock. That book has been repudiated by the author himself. You didn’t want to use that as your citation, so you decided to claim the quote was from Anita Hill herself. However, you needed to attribute it. So, remembering (wrongly) it was from the Congressional hearings, and a letter Wallace wrote to Thurmond, you found the Congressional Record page that included that letter. The problem was, you weren’t able to read the Congressional Record itself, so you assumed it was in there. I’d wager a bet the fact that you couldn’t view the page itself made you feel safe no one else could.
Unfortunately for you, that didn’t happen. You got busted using an incorrect cite that you had not checked, when you had a perfectly good cite at hand (citing to the book). But, as noted above, that cite, though accurate, didn’t give you the credibility you sought to add to claim this was a quote from Anita Hill, and so you fudged. You knew the book did not say it was a direct quote from her, so you couldn’t use it as a cite.
That’s staggeringly dishonest, and a breach of every possible convention of debating and/or citation.
