(07-31-2023 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Quote:Wow... um... okay... That's an awfully big reach, IMO.
Not really.
Ill chalk it up as you think the Lt Gov chief of staff sent a link to a bio just for ***** and grins. Got it.
At least you're admitting to creating a straw man for you to assign to me and joust with.
Quote:Ill chalk it up as you think the chancellor replied to the above (in short, and just for 'because') -- "Thanks for that bio. Got it. Making sure shes fired." Also just for ***** and grins.
Another straw man... plus not what they said. Besides, even if he DID say that, that doesn't represent your charge of coercion any more than it might suggest that they were already similarly aligned.
Quote:Ill chalk it up as you think ATM (not the chancellor) actually suspended the person who was targeted, simply because the chancellor said to do it. And no other info. ATM had no idea the Lt Gov asked anything. Im sure the Chancellor never passed that along the chain.
More straw man. At least you're consistent.
Quote:I can see that phone call from the Chancellor to College Station.....
Ring ring...
Answer: Office of the President of ATM College Station.
Chancellor: You need to fire this person.
Answer: Ill hop right on it. I wont ask why, Ill do it because we are righties. I dont care why you ask. Nor should you tell me.
Yeah, there was *no* discussion of *who* and *which office* sent the bio. Makes complete sense. Glad you corrected us.
Not only a straw man, but a complete absurdity. The fact that you have to do this is telling.
Quote:Yep, quite the investigation by the board in that case. A full two hours. It took the lecturer longer to drive home than that supposed board investigation you toss out as the high probability alternative. But it also implicates *two* boards. The board of the ATM *system* (because that is the chancellor's bailiwick).... *and* the board of ATM College Station. Yep, sure looks like there was an long frwan out board meeting, you know, what they *should* do and in your opinion what they did do, and do that report.
Says the man who alleges that in this same short period of time, the information was passed to the LTGov, a threat of some sort was thought up and delivered (coercion), accepted and acted upon by these same people. Hint... the 'investigation' wasn't going to be complete for a few days... but keep misrepresenting facts. This is fun.
Quote:Funny that she was suspended after only two hours, though. The issue *isnt* what *might be happening*, Ham, the issue is whe was suspended. In two hours. After a text from the Lt Gov office to the chancellor. And for whatever the chancellor did in passing it to College Station proper. Two hours.
Someone, or something, lit a serious fire under the chancellor's ass, *and* College Station's ass. A major league fire to have that chain in two hours. Im sure that the bio was sent from the Lt Govs office had *nothing* to do with that fire. I mean, the Lt Gov. is *only* the most powerful position in the Texas government...
I think them 'already mostly being aligned' makes a whole lot more sense than what you suggest.... since it requires no consideration of the risks of the threat... no consideration of 'what happens if we don't?' ... but rather than respectfully disagree with me, you for some reason insist on the condescension.... and I've personally make decisions about suspending someone pending a review all but 'on the spot' before. Sometimes what is alleged is so egregious that it requires an immediate statement/action denouncing the alleged offense.
But you do you, Tanq.
Quote:Quote:That's it. And from here you get 'coercion'?
Yeah, come to think of it, gettting a notice *directly* from the Lt Gov chief of staff has *zero* implication behind it...... Lolz.
Straw man again.
Quote:
I would hope that if someone reported a TSU staff member that the Lt Gov would similarly notify TSU, or Rice... [/quote]
I would hope the Lt Govs office keep their fing snouts out of a college lecture topic in a single classroom.[/quote]
Lol... ok... so rules against slander, death threats, hate speech or other don't apply in college classrooms... got it. This is just me trying to play along with your idea here. I don't think we even know what was actually said.... all I know is that the topic was opiods... something bad was said about Patrick, likely regarding that... and A&M decided that the alleged comment was 'taken out of context.'
Quote:Quote:So A&M not only doesn't say 'we were coerced' but they actually say 'this was normal conversation' (that's a paraphrase about what most of these articles said about the texts)
You think the Lt Gov getting personally involved in a sole, single college lecture literally less than 2 hours after it happened as 'normal'? Really?
I just find it funny that you are in such disbelief over this, and yet the Lt Gov getting so worked up about something a college prof said in a single classroom that he'd openly threaten the 2nd largest University in the state and one of the largest in the nation if they didn't do something makes sense to you.
As I said, I think it highly likely that the daughter told the mom that the prof essentially slandered Patrick, the mom told Patrick's office, the office notified the A&M office of the charge and then the guy at the top of A&M (who seems to me to be fairly aligned with the Lt Gov) tells him directly what's going on.... and contrary to your statement... he tells him there will be a hearing/review etc regarding her firing... and not that 'she WILL be fired'.
Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. As I've said though, I cannot rule out coercion... I just don't see any evidence of it yet. I've seen almost this exact scenario play out in person.... and I was made aware of the complaint by email, less than 15 minutes after it happened.... along with their medical records (by email though, not fax). The staff member was sent home within an hour... taken off the schedule for the next few days (suspended) pending an investigation and the charge similarly found 'not credible' (that's not the word but its close enough)
Quote:I find it highly abnormal that the chief of staff would be communicating a bio *to* a chancellor for the contents of a single, solitary college lecture.
You keep jumping up and down about a 'review' and an investigation by the board. In less than two hours? With no notice to the person except the resulting suspension? lmao.
Jumping up and down? Drama much there Tanq? I'm just stating the facts. The review and investigation is a fact reported in the text from Sharp...which YOU have misquoted as 'She will be fired'. PROBABLY verifiable through other records... The FAX was apparently sent in two hours. I don't know how long until Sharp's response... it sounds pretty quick... but it wasn't 2 hours.... and the investigation CERTAINLY wasn't... as is clear from Sharp's text.
I still don't know what she was alleged to have said. My situation was of an alleged improper (racial) comment by an employee... sometimes immediate action is required. Just picking an example I think we'd all agree on... had she made a death threat, I think we'd all agree that this would require some pretty immediate response.
The bio does seem a bit odd... as in 'old school'....why would you need to fax that? An email or link would have been easier, or let them look it up... and no, I don't think a faxed bio is more meaningful than whatever was said that prompted it ... but it also seems likely that the 'complaint' would have come through the A&M-CS system as well... and that Sharp's office might have needed at least the name (and someone decided to send a bio) to know who was being discussed, since the 'internal' complaint wouldn't have been brought to him directly.... sounds like someone in his office may have had to go ask the CS people what was up.
This just seems the most obvious/simple answer to me. Girl gets pissed at what a prof says and calls her mom... who tells her to go file a complaint... and then she reaches out to her 'boss'... the subject of the comment. The Boss' office goes to their 'friend' at the entity who doesn't even know who this person is... they make a call and find out and then he tells them what's going on.
That all seems perfectly logical to me. The alleged coercion to happen that fast and yet leave so little evidence and no 'leak' is what seems far fetched to me. While odd, the fax isn't a threat in and of itself... it merely clearly defines the subject matter.... nobody denies they spoke about her.... and that conversation would carry vastly more weight. Seriously, If I got some random fax from the governor's office with a person's bio, I'd assume they wanted me to give someone a job and would be confused to find they already work for me. It would be the call telling me to fire them (which you do not have and without your re-framing of Sharp's text, you cannot factually nor contextually prove.)
You don't have to agree with that and I absolutely could be wrong... but your constant use of these straw men doesn't help your argument.
Quote:I mean obviously I can't rule it out... but Occam's razor... It's hard to believe that Sharp and Patrick can keep their side agreement/the actual coercion private, but can't keep their text message timing straight, lol.
Quote:Occams razor says there is no reason for a Lt Gov's chief of staff to forward a bio to a chancellor. Ostensibly with the mind to punish the lecturer, since the response to the bio sent from the Lt Gov's office said to not worry, they are going to do just that. You overlook that.
Moving the goal posts now? I overlook it because it doesn't represent the difference between our positions.
We've all agreed this was wrong. The debate is over whether the actions by A&M were coerced... an abuse of power. That's why you keep talking about how 'a fax from the Lt Gov carries no weight' canard...
Unless there is something especially egregious about the allegation... as in a death threat or something... it is wrong for the lt gov's office to be involved... I generally have agreed... but we're discussing coercion vs alignment...
Quote:Quote:But lacking in any evidence of any pressure being applied. Nobody denies they spoke about her/it...
I take it you will blow off the communication from the chief of staff of the LT Gov. And take it that when he singularly sends you a bio of someone his boss didnt like, that there is zero political pressure. Again -- Lt Governor. The strongest and most powerful position in the Texas Government.
Why would you 'take it'? I just said, nobody denies they spoke about her/it'?
Why would you need to apply pressure to someone on your side of an issue?
Quote:The office is sending a very clear message to the chancellor that 'your lecturer peon made the Lt Gov unhappy. Here is her bio.'
The resulting transmission is the chancellor saying 'shes going to get fired'.
In Ham-world that is a normal and unremarkable occurrence? Otay.....
Misquoting and mischaracterizing.
Once again, NOBODY said 'she's going to get fired'. You keep putting that in quotes. I understand that is how you read it and it is not completely out of the question, but that is NOT what was said.
I said that Sharp's office said it was 'normal'. Why do you think they are lying about this? For what purpose? To cover for Sharp who is being coerced by the Lt Gov? Isn't that a crime? Blow the whistle and whatever
badyou are being 'coerced' with is now all but assured not to happen. If they're covering for the Lt Gov, that only demonstrates my position that they are aligned and contradicts yours.
Quote:What do *you* think the message was from the Office of the Lt Governor to the chancellor having her bio in it?
I think the message was pretty simple... Here is the Bio of the person we were talking about.
Quote:Any intervention by the OFFICE OF THE LT GOV is stupid, and wholly uncalled for. A message from the Lt Gov via his chief communications person with a link to bio in it to an employer and also indicating displeasure with that person in the bio is sending a clear message ---- that message is the most powerful person in the Texas sate government is irked at your employee, and you need to do something about it.
There is zero reason for the office of the Lt Gov to be *sending* any link to any bio whatsoever in this situation.
What official Texas business is your alternative for this communication?
A) I've already said it was wrong. Maybe you should pay closer attention. The topic is, is it coercion or alignment.
B) I can certainly imagine (as you have, but in the opposite direction) all sorts of situations where 'official Texas business' would be involved here... but that would require (as you are doing) assuming facts not in evidence and speculation. It would likely also involve situations where honest people can disagree on 'what is official business'.
C) also as I alluded to, why bother with the fax? Why TURN this into 'official' communication? If you're know you're doing something wrong (unethical coercion) why advertise it by creating an official record when you don't have to? Why would sharp admit to 'the fix' in a text? That's just ignorant on ALL of their parts. The phone is already in your hand.
Quote:Quote: SOunds to me like routine reporting of a claim to the proper authorities from a co-worker... and that is how A&M described the communication as well.
Again, the chain is:
Office of the LT GOV communicates a bio to the chancellor.
That person is canned by the system in less than two hours.
How is that 'routine' in any world?
That's not the entire chain, nor is it a factually accurate representation even of the 'links' that you have presented. The person was not canned AT ALL... much less 'in two hours'.
A more, but still not full chain would be:
Prof makes a statement that a student finds problematic
Student relays complaint... it is not 100% clear to whom, but 'to her political mom' and also 'to her university' makes sense to me.
Mom relays to Lt Gov - Univ likely starts doing their thing...
2 hours later, someone in LG's office notifies their buddy on the board (happens here at Rice all the time) of the complaint... and sends a bio so the board member knows whom they're discussing
Board member looks into it and sometime later, reports back to his 'friend' what the status is...
She's been suspended pending an investigation which should be concluded quickly... pretty obviously meaning that even if they agree on a likely outcome... that it is still not 'set'.
The investigation finds 'not-actionable' (which I assume you will believe only happened because of the noise about it, also without evidence)
THAT is a more full chain of events.
The key element that is missing from your story is NOT 'whether or not they should have reached out to Sharp' (because we've agreed such things are generally wrong barring some pretty extraordinary things)... but pressure being applied on A&M or Sharp for a preferred outcome... or Sharp on someone at A&M I guess...
Quote:Yes, I understand. In Ham world getting a bio forwarded from the chief of staff most powerful government holder in the state carries *zero* weight. Got it.
Straw Man/misrepresentation
Quote:It may be that the Univ went along. Based on the timing and contents of the communication it sure seems that the Univ wasnt the instigator -- it was the Lt Gov.
Based on your misrepresentation of the contents of the communication and timing I'd agree... but those pesky facts get in the way.
Quote:Quote:Coercion usually involves some sort of threat... as in perhaps using the power of the office against A&M if they don't comply...
Coercion can involve an out of the ordinary request carrying the name of someone powerful.
Lol... now we're arguing definitions.
Coercion, especially when talking about 'wrongdoing' (as opposed to a daughter sweetly coercing her father to buy her a pony) involves getting someone to do something they legally/ethically/morally shouldn't, or wouldn't normally do.
If you generally adopt stray dogs and I send you a cute picture of one, I have arguably coerced you to adopt it, but it is entirely in your nature to do so and I have done nothing 'wrong'. If instead I say... adopt this dog or bad things will happen to you, THAT is 'wrongdoing'.
Quote:Quote:Quote:No, the actions are fairly different, and I dont think your putting them in the same box fits very well.
Maybe you missed where I said they were also different in their evidence, yet you have no problem putting them in the same box.... and you also missed where I said, IF what you say/believe is true then its even worse.
I didnt miss it. I thought it superfluous.
How convenient for you to do so. Allows you to attack people while feeling free from being labeled hypocritical. You said it, but I thought it meaningless so it doesn't count.
Quote:Quote:First, I probably should have said 'this coercive call'... I didn't mean ANY call. Of course SOME call took place.
I guess you think a communication from the chief of staff of the Lt Gov. bears zero weight. Sounds fun.
Straw man again
Quote:That aint the way that works Ham. When the COS puts out an official communication, under his office title, he is communicating the wishes of that office holder.
1) so this was an 'official communication'??
2) What was the contents of the communication??
Without your super-secret vulcan mind melding capabilities, all I see is a very clear identification of the person who is the clear subject of a 'complaint'. If these were lawyers, at worst you'd call it an amicus brief filed by a friend of the court. The problem is, all this brief does is identify the accused. You have assumed everything else.
Quote:Just ask Mark Meadows, or Gardner Pate. When you get a message from Gardner that relates to the Governor, you are absolutely fing getting a message from Gov. Abbott.
Just like when you get a call from the chief clerk of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, you are getting a call from the Chief Justice.
And you can take it to the bank that the chancellor knows exactly who Dan Davila is, and who Marian Wallace is. And knows exactly who he is speaking with.
No matter how much you wave your hands and say its not. But given that level of naivete there, there probably isnt much more to say.
With that rationale, I guess you similarly dont think that the personnel at MAL didnt think Trump was communicating with them when Nauta told them to delete the survelillance data.
lol at the deflections and straw men... and again with your 'hand waving'... get some new material Tanq...
Nobody has ever suggested that they didn't know to whom they were communicating. Nobody has ever suggested that they didn't know WHY they were communicating. All that has been suggested is that you are assuming some sort of wrongdoing as opposed to a simple 'heads up' or a 'can you let me know what's up with this, since I'm likely going to be asked about it'
YOU have assumed a devious purpose. I see no evidence of that. It can still be 'wrong', but I see no evidence of pressure for a specific outcome. You just assume it.
and no amount of your own hand-waving, and especially not all these attacks on me, misrepresentations of facts and deflections to unrelated events is going to change that.
Now perhaps you have personal experience with Patrick that causes you to believe this... maybe that is exactly how he operates all the time... which is a big part of why I don't rule out your belief... another big part is that clearly there were other conversations and maybe there is a smoking gun somewhere...
but you seem intent on brow-beating me into accepting your 'authority' on words that mean something other than their standard definitions and 'what other people meant or think'. Since you are so often wrong about me and my thoughts and beliefs... and of course I am 100% certain about those myself... my skepticism is warranted.
/
And now from C̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶s̶t̶ C̶h̶i̶n̶a̶ Texas…
