CSNbbs

(05-13-2021 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]says the whadabout guy.

The works of Nostradamus physically exist, and many people claim it has factual components. So shall we use them to justify a
FISA court ruling? I would not defend that move- maybe you would.

Evidence before the FISA Court is supposed to be 100% true. Maybe Lad has a lower threshold. If so, what is it?

Re: the bolded. Nice try to polarize my position. But it is a false argument.

OO when called out for whatboutism:

Cute cartoon, but factually incorrect.

According to your logic, since the NYPD is mentioned, and the NYPD exists, the entire cartoon can be used to justify a FISA warrant.

You never have given us your opinion on using Nostradamus to get a FISA warrant.

In the recent posts you're referencing about me :defending the Steele Dossier," did we discuss its role in the FISA warrant?

What other importance could it have?

Without its use in promoting the witch hunt, it is just another piece of crap lying around, much like all the books on Roswell or Area 51 - which BTW really exist.

I’ll ask again, what recent posts of mine are you referring to when you say I defended it? And did those posts discuss its role in the FISA warrants?

Or are you trying to dishonestly ascribe this defense to me to win a point in The Quad?

FTR, the above is not an indictment of any individual... but a commentary on how the left has reacted to the SIGNIFICANT and clearly intentional manipulations in the Steele dossier. I haven't heard one single one of them do what we as an entire society would do if we discovered a cop had lied/fabricated VITAL evidence in a proceeding. We would doubt every single other thing they had said and why.... Instead the left has essentially said, well yeah... they went a little far, but all of this other unimportant stuff was still true.

I find the juxtaposition of that vs a situation on this very forum where we're told 'what many conservatives would improperly call' something (cancel culture... and this is a straw man and has nothing to do with anyone on here)... versus what I've heard NO liberal call the Steele dossier.... a fraud/an attempt to fabricate evidence intended to illegally convict an American citizen and to displace a lawfully elected official...

In the same vein, Many liberals still believe that what the Steele dossier claimed was 100% true. Stupid/ignorant/highly politicized people DO exist. So what? What does that have to do with intelligent discourse?

The definition of a term like 'Cancel Culture' has to do a lot with someone's perspective. Some people would describe it more generally than others... like anything that attempts to use the power of a vocal and emotional mob to silence opinions that disagree with theirs...

I was watching a show the other night talking about Caitlyn (FKA Bruce) Jenner's comment about ensuring fairness for women as part of the TG athlete discussion... and an activist described pending legislation in a number of states intended to clarify the 'rules of engagement' for trans-gendered athletes and her comment as 'telling children 2-15 yrs old that they don't have a right to exist'.

First of all, I don't think there are any COMPETITIVE sports that involve kids less than 6... and prior to about 10 or so, gender almost never comes into play. Co-ed teams are common... so TG has no bearing on any of those. How many 2 yr olds even consider gender??Between 10 and 18, these people ARE being discussed; but 'right to exist'?? C'mon. That's like me arguing that someone who is against d1 sports is challenging the right of athletes to exist. They act as if no gender determination for competitive equality is necessary... and many who have fought for the equal treatment of female athletes... for 'a league of their own' are suddenly silent? 50 years of fight for LITERALLY half the nation is over because of the needs of a much smaller fraction?

I mean seriously... Men aren't concerned about TG athletes. Some may have opinions, but its not as if there are TG female-male athletes out there who are challenging men for scholarships or money in the draft or whatever. Might they challenge them for a seat on the bench?? Sure... but no 'star' is concerned. The people who are concerned are women who are being displaced by male-female athletes.... and suddenly the party whom the left has loudly proclaimed 'doesn't care about women and wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' now is the only party that does??

No, I'm not saying Republicans don't have their own hypocrisy... but I AM saying that liberals (and mostly liberals in the media) are much more aggressive in their victimhood and exploitation... CREATING disagreements and division when none really exists.

I think 90% of people understand the potential for 'unfairness' in this discussion... yet that isn't what is being put forth. What's being put forth is 'if you're against my opinion, you're a nazi and need to be silenced'. That is (by many, though clearly not all definitions) cancel culture.

(05-13-2021 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]The Steele dossier has no probative value, otherwise. Without it, no FISA warrants and likely no two years of 'investigation'.

You act as if it was some random and unnecessary '+1 that someone added on a site like this as opposed to the basis of a highly partisan and intrusive to the workings of the nation, legal proceeding

No, I act as if I know what posts OO is talking about. The posts were comparing journalists making up a story (specifically that Kamala Harris books were being provided to every migrant child in a detention facility ) versus journalists reporting on the Steele Dossier.

In those posts, I "defended" the Steele Dossier by saying it actually was an actual document that exist and wasn't fabricated by the journalist, and that some of the facts in it have been proven to be true.

Quote:Said differently, it's like a police officer making up a claim of the presence of a gun to justify having shot someone... putting it in his report... including some factual information like all of the other events, EXCEPT the presence of the gun, which is a vital component of the charge or defense... and someone defending the cop as having presented a report that was mostly factual.

In THAT event, I'm 100% convinced that you'd be using the falsified report (that still included a whole lot of facts) as evidence of the depravity of the cop, and not in ANY way as supporting the cop. I certainly would. Here, you don't.

Another example of confusing weight with volume. Yes, it was even arguably 'mostly factual' in terms of the number of items presented, but the ONE event that clearly wasn't factual is the only one that really matters. Without the gun, there IS no claim of self-defense... even if everything else happened just exactly as he said.

Here I don't? Can you explain what I have not been doing?

If you wanted to be correct about the posts OO is referencing, and what I'm discussing (and not the position OO is trying to ascribe to me), it would be like if a reporter reported on the falsified report, and someone else equated that report to one about something that didn't exist. I would be labeled as "defending the falsified report" when I pointed out that it both existed and had some facts included, when compared to something that was totally fabricated.

What a silly back and forth, and oh so typical. Conservative posters telling liberal posters what they believe and twisting things so the liberal posters are meant to defend a position they haven't taken (but one that other progressives or liberals have).

(05-13-2021 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO when called out for whatboutism:

Cute cartoon, but factually incorrect.

According to your logic, since the NYPD is mentioned, and the NYPD exists, the entire cartoon can be used to justify a FISA warrant.

You never have given us your opinion on using Nostradamus to get a FISA warrant.

In the recent posts you're referencing about me :defending the Steele Dossier," did we discuss its role in the FISA warrant?

What other importance could it have?

Without its use in promoting the witch hunt, it is just another piece of crap lying around, much like all the books on Roswell or Area 51 - which BTW really exist.

I’ll ask again, what recent posts of mine are you referring to when you say I defended it? And did those posts discuss its role in the FISA warrants?

Or are you trying to dishonestly ascribe this defense to me to win a point in The Quad?

Get personal quickly, do ya? You libs go quickly to pointing the dishonesty finger, except when it involves a Biden or a Harris. I will not go the same route with you. I am nicer than that.

I don't know how to find old posts here. So I will just pull a Lad and tell you to find it yourself. Do the equivalent of googling Lad, Steele.

Your basic premise, as I remember, was that the Steele Dossier was valid because some points turned out to be true. You never explained which points those were. I don't know if they involved payoffs to oligarachs, having opponents assassinated, playing cards on AF1, or the weather in Moscow, and I sure as hell cannot find out from you.

(05-13-2021 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cute cartoon, but factually incorrect.

According to your logic, since the NYPD is mentioned, and the NYPD exists, the entire cartoon can be used to justify a FISA warrant.

You never have given us your opinion on using Nostradamus to get a FISA warrant.

In the recent posts you're referencing about me :defending the Steele Dossier," did we discuss its role in the FISA warrant?

What other importance could it have?

Without its use in promoting the witch hunt, it is just another piece of crap lying around, much like all the books on Roswell or Area 51 - which BTW really exist.

I’ll ask again, what recent posts of mine are you referring to when you say I defended it? And did those posts discuss its role in the FISA warrants?

Or are you trying to dishonestly ascribe this defense to me to win a point in The Quad?

Get personal quickly, do ya? You libs go quickly to pointing the dishonesty finger, except when it involves a Biden or a Harris. I will not go the same route with you. I am nicer than that.

I don't know how to find old posts here. So I will just pull a Lad and tell you to find it yourself. Do the equivalent of googling Lad, Steele.

Your basic premise, as I remember, was that the Steele Dossier was valid because some points turned out to be true. You never explained which points those were. I don't know if they involved payoffs to oligarachs, having opponents assassinated, playing cards on AF1, or the weather in Moscow, and I sure as hell cannot find out from you.

Well, when you try and tell me what I think, and you're off base, I think it's more than appropriate to get personal.

This is the second time in 2 days where you have accused me of posting something specific (defending the Steele Dossier and that I ignore Frank Luntz quotes because they were from Fox News). And in both instances when I've asked you to back up this claim, you've deflected.

Look, stop accusing me of saying something, taking a position, and especially of posting something specific, if you are unable and unwilling to back it up.

(05-13-2021 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In the recent posts you're referencing about me :defending the Steele Dossier," did we discuss its role in the FISA warrant?

What other importance could it have?

Without its use in promoting the witch hunt, it is just another piece of crap lying around, much like all the books on Roswell or Area 51 - which BTW really exist.

I’ll ask again, what recent posts of mine are you referring to when you say I defended it? And did those posts discuss its role in the FISA warrants?

Or are you trying to dishonestly ascribe this defense to me to win a point in The Quad?

Get personal quickly, do ya? You libs go quickly to pointing the dishonesty finger, except when it involves a Biden or a Harris. I will not go the same route with you. I am nicer than that.

I don't know how to find old posts here. So I will just pull a Lad and tell you to find it yourself. Do the equivalent of googling Lad, Steele.

Your basic premise, as I remember, was that the Steele Dossier was valid because some points turned out to be true. You never explained which points those were. I don't know if they involved payoffs to oligarachs, having opponents assassinated, playing cards on AF1, or the weather in Moscow, and I sure as hell cannot find out from you.

Well, when you try and tell me what I think, and you're off base, I think it's more than appropriate to get personal.

This is the second time in 2 days where you have accused me of posting something specific (defending the Steele Dossier and that I ignore Frank Luntz quotes because they were from Fox News). And in both instances when I've asked you to back up this claim, you've deflected.

Look, stop accusing me of saying something, taking a position, and especially of posting something specific, if you are unable and unwilling to back it up.

Pot, kettle.

Specifically, it's not that you ignore Frank Luntz, it's that you ignore stuff reported on Fox as much as you can. He has been reporting on Fox for nearly a decade, but the first time I remember you paying any attention to him was when he was on CNN.

I doubt I can find a quote from you saying "I am ignoring this because it is from Fox News", You tend to just not respond, and those nonresponses are hard to quote. Since they are hard to quote, they are easy for you to demand them to be quoted. So I did not respond, in turn.

As for the Steele Dossier, you and I had a long and tedious argument. I tend to remember those discussions. You were defending the Mueller witch hunt on the grounds of the dossier, as I remember. In particular, you were defending it on the grounds that some (unmentioned) items turned out to be true.

When we go to court, we swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but apparently in the FISA court, 20% or so is good. Defend that, if you want.

Sorry I am not as internet-capable as you deem me to be. But my memory is good.

since you want to make this personal, I guess I'll just say that you are dodging and deflecting. Whether or not you are truthful, I cannot discern.

(05-13-2021 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]The Steele dossier has no probative value, otherwise. Without it, no FISA warrants and likely no two years of 'investigation'.

You act as if it was some random and unnecessary '+1 that someone added on a site like this as opposed to the basis of a highly partisan and intrusive to the workings of the nation, legal proceeding

No, I act as if I know what posts OO is talking about. The posts were comparing journalists making up a story (specifically that Kamala Harris books were being provided to every migrant child in a detention facility ) versus journalists reporting on the Steele Dossier.

In those posts, I "defended" the Steele Dossier by saying it actually was an actual document that exist and wasn't fabricated by the journalist, and that some of the facts in it have been proven to be true.

Quote:Said differently, it's like a police officer making up a claim of the presence of a gun to justify having shot someone... putting it in his report... including some factual information like all of the other events, EXCEPT the presence of the gun, which is a vital component of the charge or defense... and someone defending the cop as having presented a report that was mostly factual.

In THAT event, I'm 100% convinced that you'd be using the falsified report (that still included a whole lot of facts) as evidence of the depravity of the cop, and not in ANY way as supporting the cop. I certainly would. Here, you don't.

Another example of confusing weight with volume. Yes, it was even arguably 'mostly factual' in terms of the number of items presented, but the ONE event that clearly wasn't factual is the only one that really matters. Without the gun, there IS no claim of self-defense... even if everything else happened just exactly as he said.

Here I don't? Can you explain what I have not been doing?

I did. Post 440. If the Steele dossier were instead a similarly misleading report filed by a police officer with tidbits of truth, you'd be calling for the author's head, questioning the bias in the process that allowed it to proceed despite the lies and not making the pedantic claim that 'parts of it were true'. You have treated this differently for the sole and obvious reason that you think the ends justify the means.

There's a reason people draw conclusions about you and what you think... nobody is making this **** up. If you don't care then don't care... but its laughable when you act as if 'being silent' on PART of an issue and supportive of PART of it is the same as 'being vocally against' it.

Quote:If you wanted to be correct about the posts OO is referencing, and what I'm discussing (and not the position OO is trying to ascribe to me), it would be like if a reporter reported on the falsified report, and someone else equated that report to one about something that didn't exist. I would be labeled as "defending the falsified report" when I pointed out that it both existed and had some facts included, when compared to something that was totally fabricated.

Blah blah blah.... arguing in the absurd and on the minutia... You can't see the forest for the trees. In the case of the falsified police report example, you wouldn't have been mentioning the tidbits of truth in it. You'd be focused on the material misrepresentations... ALONE. The fact that you keep trying to dodge OO's questions and comments and then do the same to me doesn't change that.

Quote:What a silly back and forth, and oh so typical. Conservative posters telling liberal posters what they believe and twisting things so the liberal posters are meant to defend a position they haven't taken (but one that other progressives or liberals have).

Pfft... post 428 where you talk about 'what conservatives would do'... and then double down on it with your interpretation of 'the reason'... not to mention that OO obviously feels you're not responding to what he's saying or asking.... pot:kettle

The clear point I made and you're dancing around is that NOT ONCE have you treated the Steele Dossier as you would a similarly misleading police report used to justify a warrant. Not once. When the only commentary you have on it is that 'it exists and contains some facts', you are defending it. That's not some massive stretch, lad. Are you its BIGGEST defender? NO, and I mentioned that when I spoke about those who still believe 100% of it...

Again, if 'what I had to say' in response to a charge that a police officer falsified a report and that false report lead to a huge and costly (mostly IMO in terms of creating/widening division) investigation that likely wouldn't have happened without it (fruit of the poisoned tree)... was 'it exists and parts of it are true', you would accuse me of 'supporting' it. AM I its biggest supporter? No. But clearly I'm not even in the camp of... Well, I think the guy is guilty anyway, but rules are what rules are... and the prosecution isn't allowed to 'cheat' just because they're convinced they're right. When they cheat, they lose. That's how our laws work. You've said nothing like that that I've seen.

FOr the record, I don't think I've told you what you think... I've told you what message your actions and comments imply. Even in your corrections, I STILL haven't seen you say that 'while there are elements of the Steele dossier that were correct, there were also MATERIAL parts that were clearly not... and thus the entire process after that is brought into doubt' or anything like that.

If you COULD say something like that, you'd be demonstrating that you DON'T support the Steele document, rather than this repeated 'existential' foolishness.

NOBODY has ever said the document doesn't exist... so why do you think you need to even mention it, much less 'defend' it?

(05-13-2021 11:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 09:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]The Steele dossier has no probative value, otherwise. Without it, no FISA warrants and likely no two years of 'investigation'.

You act as if it was some random and unnecessary '+1 that someone added on a site like this as opposed to the basis of a highly partisan and intrusive to the workings of the nation, legal proceeding

No, I act as if I know what posts OO is talking about. The posts were comparing journalists making up a story (specifically that Kamala Harris books were being provided to every migrant child in a detention facility ) versus journalists reporting on the Steele Dossier.

In those posts, I "defended" the Steele Dossier by saying it actually was an actual document that exist and wasn't fabricated by the journalist, and that some of the facts in it have been proven to be true.

Quote:Said differently, it's like a police officer making up a claim of the presence of a gun to justify having shot someone... putting it in his report... including some factual information like all of the other events, EXCEPT the presence of the gun, which is a vital component of the charge or defense... and someone defending the cop as having presented a report that was mostly factual.

In THAT event, I'm 100% convinced that you'd be using the falsified report (that still included a whole lot of facts) as evidence of the depravity of the cop, and not in ANY way as supporting the cop. I certainly would. Here, you don't.

Another example of confusing weight with volume. Yes, it was even arguably 'mostly factual' in terms of the number of items presented, but the ONE event that clearly wasn't factual is the only one that really matters. Without the gun, there IS no claim of self-defense... even if everything else happened just exactly as he said.

Here I don't? Can you explain what I have not been doing?

I did. Post 440. If the Steele dossier were instead a similarly misleading report filed by a police officer with tidbits of truth, you'd be calling for the author's head, questioning the bias in the process that allowed it to proceed despite the lies and not making the pedantic claim that 'parts of it were true'. You have treated this differently for the sole and obvious reason that you think the ends justify the means.

There's a reason people draw conclusions about you and what you think... nobody is making this **** up. If you don't care then don't care... but its laughable when you act as if 'being silent' on PART of an issue and supportive of PART of it is the same as 'being vocally against' it.

Quote:If you wanted to be correct about the posts OO is referencing, and what I'm discussing (and not the position OO is trying to ascribe to me), it would be like if a reporter reported on the falsified report, and someone else equated that report to one about something that didn't exist. I would be labeled as "defending the falsified report" when I pointed out that it both existed and had some facts included, when compared to something that was totally fabricated.

Blah blah blah.... arguing in the absurd and on the minutia... You can't see the forest for the trees. In the case of the falsified police report example, you wouldn't have been mentioning the tidbits of truth in it. You'd be focused on the material misrepresentations... ALONE. The fact that you keep trying to dodge OO's questions and comments and then do the same to me doesn't change that.

Quote:What a silly back and forth, and oh so typical. Conservative posters telling liberal posters what they believe and twisting things so the liberal posters are meant to defend a position they haven't taken (but one that other progressives or liberals have).

Pfft... post 428 where you talk about 'what conservatives would do'... and then double down on it with your interpretation of 'the reason'... not to mention that OO obviously feels you're not responding to what he's saying or asking.... pot:kettle

The clear point I made and you're dancing around is that NOT ONCE have you treated the Steele Dossier as you would a similarly misleading police report used to justify a warrant. Not once. When the only commentary you have on it is that 'it exists and contains some facts', you are defending it. That's not some massive stretch, lad. Are you its BIGGEST defender? NO, and I mentioned that when I spoke about those who still believe 100% of it...

Again, if 'what I had to say' in response to a charge that a police officer falsified a report and that false report lead to a huge and costly (mostly IMO in terms of creating/widening division) investigation that likely wouldn't have happened without it (fruit of the poisoned tree)... was 'it exists and parts of it are true', you would accuse me of 'supporting' it. AM I its biggest supporter? No. But clearly I'm not even in the camp of... Well, I think the guy is guilty anyway, but rules are what rules are... and the prosecution isn't allowed to 'cheat' just because they're convinced they're right. When they cheat, they lose. That's how our laws work. You've said nothing like that that I've seen.

FOr the record, I don't think I've told you what you think... I've told you what message your actions and comments imply. Even in your corrections, I STILL haven't seen you say that 'while there are elements of the Steele dossier that were correct, there were also MATERIAL parts that were clearly not... and thus the entire process after that is brought into doubt' or anything like that.

If you COULD say something like that, you'd be demonstrating that you DON'T support the Steele document, rather than this repeated 'existential' foolishness.

NOBODY has ever said the document doesn't exist... so why do you think you need to even mention it, much less 'defend' it?

You haven't seen me address the Steele Dossiers relevance to the FISA warrant because that was in no way, shape, or form, related to anything I've posted about the Steele Dossier in months (if not years).

The fact that you said the bolded indicates to me we're talking about VERY different things. And that's because you jumped into a conversation (once again) and completely redirected it (once again).

Go back and find the posts where we were discussing the Kamala Harris books and you'll see why I needed to even mention that the Steele Dossier was a physical document. Even in that conversation, OO moved to try and make it out as if I was defending its contents completely, when I was responding to a poor analogy he was making where he used the Steele Dossier as an example.

Here is the start of that back and forth, and what I was referencing with OO:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-911381-post-17...id17402028

I've got no desire to litigate a point I was not trying to make, no matter how hard you litigate your perspective.

(05-13-2021 08:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And posters on here complained about how liberals handled the reality of Clinton losing...

Heck, I complained about how liberals vandalized White House keyboards when George W. Bush won.

I mean, how important is the W key? Hen I typed this post, I didn't even use it once!

Except when you defined it at the 'W' key, mind you.

(05-13-2021 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And posters on here complained about how liberals handled the reality of Clinton losing...

Heck, I complained about how liberals vandalized White House keyboards when George W. Bush won.

I mean, how important is the W key? Hen I typed this post, I didn't even use it once!

It's hard for me to be objective about the W key, but I think it and G are two of the best!

(05-13-2021 02:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 08:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And posters on here complained about how liberals handled the reality of Clinton losing...

Heck, I complained about how liberals vandalized White House keyboards when George W. Bush won.

I mean, how important is the W key? Hen I typed this post, I didn't even use it once!

Except when you defined it at the 'W' key, mind you.

Damn! How'd I miss that one? lol

(05-13-2021 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You haven't seen me address the Steele Dossiers relevance to the FISA warrant because that was in no way, shape, or form, related to anything I've posted about the Steele Dossier in months (if not years).

The fact that you said the bolded indicates to me we're talking about VERY different things. And that's because you jumped into a conversation (once again) and completely redirected it (once again).

Go back and find the posts where we were discussing the Kamala Harris books and you'll see why I needed to even mention that the Steele Dossier was a physical document. Even in that conversation, OO moved to try and make it out as if I was defending its contents completely, when I was responding to a poor analogy he was making where he used the Steele Dossier as an example.

Here is the start of that back and forth, and what I was referencing with OO:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-911381-post-17...id17402028

I've got no desire to litigate a point I was not trying to make, no matter how hard you litigate your perspective.

Wait... so you brought up something in THIS thread that is referencing another thread and that's okay.
I bring up something directly from the dozen or so posts that directly preceded mine... roughly posts 427-439, which I responded to in 440... and I'm the 'redirecting the conversation?

That's (once again) laughable.

NOBODY believes that you merely support the existence of the Steele dossier, which was your specific claim in the posts I was responding to.... Since OO made the charge and you specifically responded to it, my comments are 100% on topic...

All I've done since then is defend my support in post 440 for OO's position that began in post 429 and quoted numerous times in response, up to and including post 439.

I've been 'on topic' the whole time... you just don't like the topic.

Looks like both sides are guilty of cancel culture...

Quote: Nikole Hannah-Jones, the controversial founder of the 1619 Project, has lost her alma mater's offer for tenure and is instead under consideration for a fixed five-year contract as a professor of practice.

NC Policy Watch reported on the change Wednesday amid a wave of criticism of her work. According to the outlet, the University of North Carolina's board of trustees decided not to approve Hannah-Jones' tenure – which effectively translates into a career-long appointment – despite support from faculty.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/1619-project-...tenure.amp

(05-19-2021 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like both sides are guilty of cancel culture...

Quote: Nikole Hannah-Jones, the controversial founder of the 1619 Project, has lost her alma mater's offer for tenure and is instead under consideration for a fixed five-year contract as a professor of practice.

NC Policy Watch reported on the change Wednesday amid a wave of criticism of her work. According to the outlet, the University of North Carolina's board of trustees decided not to approve Hannah-Jones' tenure – which effectively translates into a career-long appointment – despite support from faculty.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/1619-project-...tenure.amp

I'm not going to click on the link, but please tell me how offering someone a 5 year contract to do ANYTHING = cancel culture?

If they'd fired her, at least that would arguably be a negative on her resume and potentially make it harder for her to get another job, but they instead gave her a paycheck, a contract and 5 years to find a place that supported her beliefs??

Cancel culture in a nutshell is 'I want you fired and your beliefs to receive no platform, and I will protest anyone who defends you, supports you or offers you or your ideals shelter'...

(05-20-2021 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-19-2021 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like both sides are guilty of cancel culture...

Quote: Nikole Hannah-Jones, the controversial founder of the 1619 Project, has lost her alma mater's offer for tenure and is instead under consideration for a fixed five-year contract as a professor of practice.

NC Policy Watch reported on the change Wednesday amid a wave of criticism of her work. According to the outlet, the University of North Carolina's board of trustees decided not to approve Hannah-Jones' tenure – which effectively translates into a career-long appointment – despite support from faculty.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/1619-project-...tenure.amp

I'm not going to click on the link, but please tell me how offering someone a 5 year contract to do ANYTHING = cancel culture?

If they'd fired her, at least that would arguably be a negative on her resume and potentially make it harder for her to get another job, but they instead gave her a paycheck, a contract and 5 years to find a place that supported her beliefs??

Cancel culture in a nutshell is 'I want you fired and your beliefs to receive no platform, and I will protest anyone who defends you, supports you or offers you or your ideals shelter'...

I chuckled a bit. I'm not going to read the article to understand the situation, but let me give my opinion on it!

Long story short, the woman was hired into a tenured position and the politically connected board denied her tenure.

The faculty went through the normal (and lengthy) tenure review and recommended she receive tenure. That review included the Chancellor and Provost. When the review was sent up to the final level (which is typically a rubber stamp, since all due diligence is done before) it was denied.

From one of the board members:

Quote:“This is a very political thing,” the trustee said. “The university and the board of trustees and the Board of Governors and the legislature have all been getting pressure since this thing was first announced last month. There have been people writing letters and making calls, for and against. But I will leave it to you which is carrying more weight.”

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2021/05/19/...FmWWUtDEhw

Is cancel culture to conservatives only when someone gets fired for their political views?

I clicked on the link.

I think when a professor up for tenure publishes an incorrect history, that should be enough to deny tenure.

Same as if a professor published a work saying QANON is the way of the future.

or if an astronomer published works proving the sun revolves around the earth.

Or if a chemist published a work saying that lead can be changed to gold.

Or that America was settled first by Vikings wanting to establish slave colonies.

(05-20-2021 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I chuckled a bit. I'm not going to read the article to understand the situation, but let me give my opinion on it!

Not remotely, Einstein.

I read your commentary on the story, and gave my opinion on your commentary... of your characterization of the events AS YOU DESCIBED THEM being 'cancel culture'. Unless your description were a lie, I had no reason to read the story.

You whine like a child when you think people challenge what you say, then you whine like a child when people accept what you say as fact.

Quote:Long story short, the woman was hired into a tenured position and the politically connected board denied her tenure.

Long story short... Tenure was not a given, else there would be no review process.

Its a process and she failed SOME part of the process. Happens every day, thousands of times a day.

End of story.

Quote:Is cancel culture to conservatives only when someone gets fired for their political views?

First, I'm not 'conservatives'.

Second, I defined cancel culture for you already. Change it from 'fired' to 'some existing benefit or post taken away' or ' a contract terminated' or any other version of the word, 'cancel'... and you have cancel culture. 'Following a process that can at times become political' does not cancel anything.

Seems though as if you want to cancel this common and long-standing process and simply go with 'faculty appointment' for tenure.



A simple English test here, Lad.

What was 'canceled'? What was granted and then terminated?

(05-20-2021 01:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2021 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I chuckled a bit. I'm not going to read the article to understand the situation, but let me give my opinion on it!

Not remotely, Einstein.

I read your commentary on the story, and gave my opinion on your commentary... of your characterization of the events AS YOU DESCIBED THEM being 'cancel culture'. Unless your description were a lie, I had no reason to read the story.

You whine like a child when you think people challenge what you say, then you whine like a child when people accept what you say as fact.

Quote:Long story short, the woman was hired into a tenured position and the politically connected board denied her tenure.

Long story short... Tenure was not a given, else there would be no review process.

Its a process and she failed SOME part of the process. Happens every day, thousands of times a day.

End of story.

Quote:Is cancel culture to conservatives only when someone gets fired for their political views?

First, I'm not 'conservatives'.

Second, I defined cancel culture for you already. Change it from 'fired' to 'some existing benefit or post taken away' or ' a contract terminated' or any other version of the word, 'cancel'... and you have cancel culture. 'Following a process that can at times become political' does not cancel anything.

Seems though as if you want to cancel this common and long-standing process and simply go with 'faculty appointment' for tenure.



A simple English test here, Lad.

What was 'canceled'? What was granted and then terminated?

Wow, someone pissed in your cheerios, huh?

First, my "commentary" was incredibly short and presented an overview. If you want to argue against that point, you should really do some research to back it up, instead of firing from the hip. I do appreciate that you at least admit you fired from the hip, but your response to that (in both posts), is pretty childish.

I didn't lie in my analysis. If you want to push back on my analysis, you should understand the situation - instead you relied on two sentences from the beginning of an article, hardly enough to form an informed opinion.

I've got no problem with you challenging my opinion, but don't act like a child when I call out how shallow your rebuttal is.

To get further into the details so you can understand why I say this is an example of cancel culture from the right, her tenure was, in essence, terminated. She was hired into a tenured position, and a political board denied her tenure based on politics.

This wasn't a tenure track position, where one is expected to work for X years before they go up for tenure. This position was without the track and tenure is to be conferred upon hiring. She went through the entire tenure process (including developing her tenure package). Her tenure package was reviewed and approved by those who reviewed it and would be working with her.

Her tenure was denied by a group of political appointees (either by the Board of Governors or the NC General Assembly), and the reason it was denied is purely political (as one of the Board members indicated).

So this is an existing benefit that was denied for purely political reasons - I fail to see how that wouldn't be part of cancel culture.

What was canceled? The benefit of tenure upon hiring, which has been extended to every other Knight Chair prior to Hannah-Jones.

Seriously, you're arguing that if a conservative economist had failed their bid for tenure, after all of their peers in the field had supported them, because the Board of Governors didn't agree with their conservative economic prospective, it wouldn't be cancel culture?

I would bet that I could dig up some posts on this sub about the topic of academia and how conservatives are canceled in regards to being denied tenure.

(05-20-2021 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, someone pissed in your cheerios, huh?

Nope. Just tired of dealing with troglodytes.

Quote:First, my "commentary" was incredibly short and presented an overview. If you want to argue against that point, you should really do some research to back it up, instead of firing from the hip. I do appreciate that you at least admit you fired from the hip, but your response to that (in both posts), is pretty childish.

My comment was about your characterization of someone being turned down for tenure as 'cancel culture'. Since I was pretty sure that a Fox news story wouldn't refer to it as cancel culture, I was 100% correct that I didn't need to read the story to argue about your (once again) ridiculous interpretation of it as 'cancel culture'. Now I have, and sure enough, there is no mention of 'cancel culture' in the article... nor do any of the facts that I didn't already know change anything.

Quote:I didn't lie in my analysis. If you want to push back on my analysis, you should understand the situation - instead you relied on two sentences from the beginning of an article, hardly enough to form an informed opinion.

Reading isn't your strong suit. I said I assumed you didn't lie... so I didn't in any way push back. Your same old tired BS circle jerk of logic. I relied solely on the comments YOU made that denying someone tenure was 'cancel culture'.

The details of the story that don't call it 'cancel culture' make no difference to my conclusion that it is not an example of 'cancel culture'. That is so obvious, I can't believe I have to say it to an educated person.

Quote:I've got no problem with you challenging my opinion, but don't act like a child when I call out how shallow your rebuttal is.

Lol at the guy with his repeated Spiderman meme, who calls someone childish in response to being called childish.

My rebuttal isn't shallow at all. It was thorough. What you have described isn't cancel culture. I even defined the term for you.

Quote:To get further into the details so you can understand why I say this is an example of cancel culture from the right, her tenure was, in essence, terminated. She was hired into a tenured position, and a political board denied her tenure based on politics.

This entire line of thought of yours has been addressed. The fact that you have to say 'in essence' demonstrates the flaw in your comment. She wasn't yet tenured. Tenure was subject to a review. She failed the review. 'IN ESSENCE" terminated and "TERMINATED" are not the same thing. She may have been 'in essence' dead, but you wouldn't bury her unless and until she were ACTUALLY dead.

Quote:This wasn't a tenure track position, where one is expected to work for X years before they go up for tenure. This position was without the track and tenure is to be conferred upon hiring. She went through the entire tenure process (including developing her tenure package). Her tenure package was reviewed and approved by those who reviewed it and would be working with her.

Makes no difference. She did not meet ALL of the terms of being hired. Whether the condition were x years or approval by y people, the complete terms weren't fulfilled. 'Being approved by those who reviewed it' was not the entirety of the conditions... They included a 'rubber stamp' (your words, not theirs) which she did not receive.

Quote:Her tenure was denied by a group of political appointees (either by the Board of Governors or the NC General Assembly), and the reason it was denied is purely political (as one of the Board members indicated).

Still doesn't make it cancel culture. At worst, it makes it a politically motivated denial. Not at all the same thing. I might need to read the article to confirm that belief of yours, but I don't need to read it to know its not cancel culture.

Quote:So this is an existing benefit that was denied for purely political reasons - I fail to see how that wouldn't be part of cancel culture.

Because you ALWAYS fail to see any perspective but your own. The benefits did not exist until being approved by the BOG or GA, which did not happen. Just because you or she or anyone else assumed it were a foregone conclusion doesn't mean it had yet happened.

Be serious lad... If the situation you describe were true... where she had been granted tenure and it were then revoked, she would have a clear cut and dry lawsuit. Such a situation doesn't exist. THAT would be cancel culture. That is not the case here.

How does an educated person not understand the difference between 'presumed' and 'actual' hiring?

One is the process... the other happens AFTER the process and countermands the process. She did not pass the ENTIRE process.

Quote:What was canceled? The benefit of tenure upon hiring, which has been extended to every other Knight Chair prior to Hannah-Jones.

Same stupid argument... just saying it 500 different ways doesn't change the fact that she was never hired. The fact that you or she assumed it or that it had 'never happened this way before' makes no difference to that fact. She does not have anything from the hiring board saying 'congratulations, you've been hired'. There is no vote by the ENTIRE committee where she passed muster.

I've seen THOUSANDS of 'rubber stamps' in my life not happen.

Quote:Seriously, you're arguing that if a conservative economist had failed their bid for tenure, after all of their peers in the field had supported them, because the Board of Governors didn't agree with their conservative economic prospective, it wouldn't be cancel culture?

Yep. You can't cancel something that hasn't yet started. She NEVER held the position you say was canceled.

Quote:I would bet that I could dig up some posts on this sub about the topic of academia and how conservatives are canceled in regards to being denied tenure.

So what? Knock yourself out. You might find me saying its politically wrong... you won't find me saying its 'cancel culture'.

Are you saying that there is some 'conservative' somewhere who would call what you described cancel culture only if it were a conservative but not a liberal?? Jesus, talk about a childish and shallow rebuttal.

If there is someone on here who believes that, call THEM out on it... but don't take some 'impression' that you have about what 'conservatives' believe and apply it to me, over my direct, clear and cogent objections.

This process may not be the actual one, but If the ADs office and the BOT all wanted to hire Lance Berkman and voted to do so, pending the signature of the President on the offer letter which thus far has always been a rubber stamp... and the President declined to sign it for whatever reasons he wanted, that is NOT cancel culture. It MAY be political. It MAY be personal. It may be a whole lot of things... but it is not what I nor ANYONE ON THE RIGHT I KNOW calls 'cancel culture'. That is the process... and plenty of processes have political leanings. I suspect the support from many of the other members of the committee was equally political.

Once again, you're trying to define for people on 'the right', what 'we' think. Maybe you just THINK you know what we think?? You clearly and repeatedly don't have the foggiest idea what I think.

We’ll have to agree to disagree that a politically motivated denial of a promotion is not part of cancel culture.

I’d always thought most people viewed cancel culture as people being denied opportunities, positions, etc. due to their political beliefs instead of their skills and acumen. I don’t think our opinions will align, so we should probably stop the back and forth - I won’t change your mind and vice versa.