more cases

"Should it concern a college professor that the worst-performing students in her class each semester are black? If you said yes, you're a racist and should check your privilege."

The school's Black Law Students Association said Sellers should lose her job.

"We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” the group said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

I wonder if the Black law Students Association is more likely to be dominated by progressives or Conservatives?


In November 2015, private liberal arts school Claremont McKenna College saw the resignation of its dean of students, Mary Spellman, after she made the grave mistake of attempting to comfort a Hispanic student who had complained about not feeling included by the school.

(03-12-2021 01:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 01:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon.

More like 0.00030% of conservatives.

Pretty sure there are more conservatives that are QAnoners than there are liberals who partake in violent protesting. Not that you would think that were you to peruse these forums.

Interesting, a splinter group that barely exists is considered a force in conservatism by you guys, but thousands of rioters in hundreds of cities for 100 days are a tiny minority.

I guess you can believe what you want to believe, I will just go with the numbers.

Tell me about "the numbers"? You have accurate data for # of Republicans who believe in QAnon/number of leftist protesters who participated in violence? I'd be interested in your source.

(03-12-2021 12:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.

To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.

But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.

I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.

*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.

Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.

And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.

I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.

3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".

I dont think that a false (and honestly, fundamentally unfounded, we later learn) accusation of dishonesty in 'selective editing' is deserving of anything more than what I noted it was.

In that regard, I completely disagree that my comment on your actions given that set of facts are 'histrionic.'

Your apology would have had some sincerity if it had not been belied by your second sentence.

Yep, I 'name called' --- funny that. Noting that *you* indicated me being dishonest, what the hell did you expect? And, nice touch with your 'gnaw on the bone' crap with OO there. You are hitting on all cylinders tonite.

(03-12-2021 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  more cases

"Should it concern a college professor that the worst-performing students in her class each semester are black? If you said yes, you're a racist and should check your privilege."





The school's Black Law Students Association said Sellers should lose her job.

"We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” the group said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

I wonder if the Black law Students Association is more likely to be dominated by progressives or Conservatives?

Has the Georgetown Black Law Students Association demanded the banning of Dr. Suess books? Any other books? Because that was the debate.

Nobody here has argued that cancel culture exists. I believe most of us have spoken out about cancel culture in general. I know that I have.

(03-12-2021 01:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.

But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.

I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.

*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.

Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.

And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.

I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.

3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".

I dont think that a false (and honestly, fundamentally unfounded, we later learn) accusation of dishonesty in 'selective editing' is deserving of anything more than what I noted it was.

In that regard, I completely disagree that my comment on your actions given that set of facts are 'histrionic.'

Your apology would have had some sincerity if it had not been belied by your second sentence.

Yep, I 'name called' --- funny that. Noting that *you* indicated me being dishonest, what the hell did you expect? And, nice touch with your 'gnaw on the bone' crap with OO there. You are hitting on all cylinders tonite.

Two birds with one stone.

(03-12-2021 01:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.

But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.

I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.

*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.

Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.

And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.

I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.

3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".

I dont think that a false (and honestly, fundamentally unfounded, we later learn) accusation of dishonesty in 'selective editing' is deserving of anything more than what I noted it was.

In that regard, I completely disagree that my comment on your actions given that set of facts are 'histrionic.'

Your apology would have had some sincerity if it had not been belied by your second sentence.

Yep, I 'name called' --- funny that. Noting that *you* indicated me being dishonest, what the hell did you expect? And, nice touch with your 'gnaw on the bone' crap with OO there. You are hitting on all cylinders tonite.

Two birds with one stone.

(03-12-2021 01:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.

But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.

I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.

*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.

Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.

And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.

I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.

3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".

I dont think that a false (and honestly, fundamentally unfounded, we later learn) accusation of dishonesty in 'selective editing' is deserving of anything more than what I noted it was.

In that regard, I completely disagree that my comment on your actions given that set of facts are 'histrionic.'

Your apology would have had some sincerity if it had not been belied by your second sentence.

Yep, I 'name called' --- funny that. Noting that *you* indicated me being dishonest, what the hell did you expect? And, nice touch with your 'gnaw on the bone' crap with OO there. You are hitting on all cylinders tonite.

Damn. What's a guy gotta do to get a <slow clap> around here?

(03-12-2021 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  more cases

"Should it concern a college professor that the worst-performing students in her class each semester are black? If you said yes, you're a racist and should check your privilege."

The school's Black Law Students Association said Sellers should lose her job.

"We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” the group said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

I wonder if the Black law Students Association is more likely to be dominated by progressives or Conservatives?


In November 2015, private liberal arts school Claremont McKenna College saw the resignation of its dean of students, Mary Spellman, after she made the grave mistake of attempting to comfort a Hispanic student who had complained about not feeling included by the school.

As to the first item there, Georgetown actually fired her.

Do you think the administration of Georgetown is more likely to be dominated by progressives or others?

(03-12-2021 01:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 01:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 12:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.

*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.

Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.

And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.

I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.

3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".

I dont think that a false (and honestly, fundamentally unfounded, we later learn) accusation of dishonesty in 'selective editing' is deserving of anything more than what I noted it was.

In that regard, I completely disagree that my comment on your actions given that set of facts are 'histrionic.'

Your apology would have had some sincerity if it had not been belied by your second sentence.

Yep, I 'name called' --- funny that. Noting that *you* indicated me being dishonest, what the hell did you expect? And, nice touch with your 'gnaw on the bone' crap with OO there. You are hitting on all cylinders tonite.

Damn. What's a guy gotta do to get a <slow clap> around here?

The slow clap is reserved for burying your head in the sand. I dont categorize the above as that.

I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

(03-12-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

I am still waiting on your apology for editing my posts...

(03-12-2021 01:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  more cases

"Should it concern a college professor that the worst-performing students in her class each semester are black? If you said yes, you're a racist and should check your privilege."

The school's Black Law Students Association said Sellers should lose her job.

"We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” the group said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

I wonder if the Black law Students Association is more likely to be dominated by progressives or Conservatives?


In November 2015, private liberal arts school Claremont McKenna College saw the resignation of its dean of students, Mary Spellman, after she made the grave mistake of attempting to comfort a Hispanic student who had complained about not feeling included by the school.

As to the first item there, Georgetown actually fired her.

Do you think the administration of Georgetown is more likely to be dominated by progressives or others?

Clearly run by Qanaon, since there is Qanon behind every tree.

(03-12-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

I am still waiting on your apology for editing my posts...

I did not edit your post.

(03-12-2021 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

I am still waiting on your apology for editing my posts...

I did not edit your post.

It can be demonstrated.

My original post, #1170, in full:

I heard only 9% of the bill was Covid related. I guess that number depends on definitions.

In post 1174, you say the following:

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

The part quoted was selectively edited from the entire post. You left out the "I heard..." and the caveat about definitions to make it seem as though I had made a flat out claim. THAT is YOUR editing.



in post 1193, you said: Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

I did not ARGUE For any specific percentage. I reported a claim I had heard, and immediately made the caveat that it depended on definitions, which you edited out.

I would try to make it clearer, except that it was clear from the original post.

Hehe - saw this on Twitter with a comment that said “Cancel culture run amok.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/11/...ll-street/

Quote: A bill filed in the Texas Senate Thursday would direct the state’s massive investment funds to divest from any companies that “boycott” fossil fuels.

Pressure is increasing on Wall Street for companies and investment funds to reduce their financial support for oil and gas companies. Environmental activists have long called for Wall Street and university endowments to stop investing in fossil fuels, and several universities have complied.

Last year, Larry Fink, founder and chief executive of BlackRock, one of the world’s largest investment companies, wrote to shareholders that the firm would make climate change “a defining factor” in its investment strategy, and in January, he further said it would exit investments that present a "sustainability-related" risk.

The Texas bill bites back: If passed, the legislation filed by state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, along with four other Republican state senators, would require state entities — including state pension funds and Texas’ massive K-12 school endowment — to divest from companies that refuse to invest in or do business with fossil fuel-based energy.

Who has the morale high ground? The cancelers or the cancelers of the cancelers???

(03-12-2021 09:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

I am still waiting on your apology for editing my posts...

I did not edit your post.

It can be demonstrated.

My original post, #1170, in full:

I heard only 9% of the bill was Covid related. I guess that number depends on definitions.

In post 1174, you say the following:

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

The part quoted was selectively edited from the entire post. You left out the "I heard..." and the caveat about definitions to make it seem as though I had made a flat out claim. THAT is YOUR editing.



in post 1193, you said: Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

I did not ARGUE For any specific percentage. I reported a claim I had heard, and immediately made the caveat that it depended on definitions, which you edited out.

I would try to make it clearer, except that it was clear from the original post.

It was not selectively edited. It was misinterpreted. I took your posting of that as you supporting the claim and making it yourself.

It just took you so long to clarify that I made multiple posts with the misinterpretation. You've clarified, thank you.

OO does not think that only 9% of the relief bill is COVID related.

(03-12-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who has the morale high ground? The cancelers or the cancelers of the cancelers???

We know who has the low ground: the folks who started the downward spiral of sense.

All this blabber about whether it’s 9% or whatever percent ignores one important consideration. Any percentage less than 100% is unacceptable.

(03-12-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It was not selectively edited. It was misinterpreted. I took your posting of that as you supporting the claim and making it yourself.

It just took you so long to clarify that I made multiple posts with the misinterpretation. You've clarified, thank you.

OO does not think that only 9% of the relief bill is COVID related.

Wait... so the problem wasn't that you COMPLETELY misread a VERY clear post.... where the guy very clearly says 'I heard' and "I guess' and you choose to ignore those words and interpret it as a claim of fact...

and the problem isn't that you made a clear mistake, but that OO wasn't quick enough to CORRECT you? (not clarify his words, but correct you). This wasn't a case where OO wrote something that he didn't intend... He wrote exactly what he intended.

No wonder you in ANY way blame the campus police and University, even as a joke, for you forgetting your ID and forgetting that you were 21. I mean seriously, even YOU laughed at yourself in that one, but you still managed to turn it around on others.

(03-12-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 09:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2021 07:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still waiting for that darn data set...

I am still waiting on your apology for editing my posts...

I did not edit your post.

It can be demonstrated.

My original post, #1170, in full:

I heard only 9% of the bill was Covid related. I guess that number depends on definitions.

In post 1174, you say the following:

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

The part quoted was selectively edited from the entire post. You left out the "I heard..." and the caveat about definitions to make it seem as though I had made a flat out claim. THAT is YOUR editing.



in post 1193, you said: Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did)

I did not ARGUE For any specific percentage. I reported a claim I had heard, and immediately made the caveat that it depended on definitions, which you edited out.

I would try to make it clearer, except that it was clear from the original post.

It was not selectively edited. It was misinterpreted. I took your posting of that as you supporting the claim and making it yourself.

It just took you so long to clarify that I made multiple posts with the misinterpretation. You've clarified, thank you.

OO does not think that only 9% of the relief bill is COVID related.

I took my time because I did not want to jump on every little thing. But when you kept "quoting" me, I had to take action. Kind of like I let lots of misspellings and grammar faux pas pass without comment.

It WAS selectively edited, (any editing is selctive) but it was not necessarily INTENTIONALLY selectively edited to give the false impression.

AFAIAC, this is over. Let's move on.

Now, to the facts:

I actually think a lot of the bill has no relation at all to covid, and a lot of the rest has little relationship to covid, but what the exact numbers are I cannot say. I do think that promoting the entire bill as Covid relief is misleading.