(02-04-2021 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  HERE is the big kicker, Lad...

I don't know whether 93 or Big (other lefties on here) read Tanq's comment like you did or not... because they haven't said anything... but I suspect they would read it as I did. I feel that Numbers and I (at least) didn't. The biggest difference between us would be 'how we see' each other, politically. The reason I so often get in the middle of these is that this is what I see CONSTANTLY on here... where someone from the right says something that makes perfect sense to me (and I don't mean policy but the verbiage) and you seem to read something completely different... often something that makes the 'writer' sound ignorant. It's not a policy difference, but a difference of reading comprehension or language.

If Tanq thinks that this is actually something notable (as opposed to what I said earlier) then I disagree with him... and I'm sure there are some ignorant factions of the right who would... like there are ignorant factions of the left who still believe that Trump 'stole' the 2016 election... so we would NOT be in lock-step ideologically... and I would have no problem telling him that if he thinks she is seeking to get paid to do her job through this waiver... he is flat-out wrong... but I think that would be so obvious and I know him not to be uninformed on such issues and certainly able to read an article, so I don't jump to the conclusion that he did.

Why don't you think he's informed on such issues or intelligent enough to read the story as you did?

(02-04-2021 02:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 01:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When I first read Tanq's post, I had assumed Yellin was requesting an ethics waiver for upcoming events, because that would be notable. Tanq didn't denote when the speaking fees were from, so I initially assumed they were for upcoming events (you know, requesting a waiver to receive the fees).

When I looked I read the article, that seemed to be clarified, and it seemed to be a bit of a non-notable given that other Treasury Secs have done the same.

I didn't think that she would need to meet with these regulatory bodies on a regular basis - so your mind shouldn't be boggled. Hell, Tanq's comment didn't even indicate she was meeting with regs - all he said was she was requesting an ethics waiver for Wall Street speaking fees.

Which is just a round-about way of saying exactly what I did... that you misinterpreted what Tanq said based on a flawed preconception you had.... so you READ what you thought he was saying based on your preconception... and not what he wrote.

I think that if you think about what you've suggested... that the Secretary of the Treasury was seeking to get a 'speaking fee' for doing her job... You would realize how ridiculous that would be... and thus how insulting it is that you SO OFTEN think so little of us... that we'd be out here making such outlandish claims. While you disagree greatly, Tanq has repeatedly shown himself to be an intelligent and informed person, with clear knowledge in political arenas and ethics. I'd say the same about Big... and yet I've seen them disagree a lot.

Its the repeated act of making DUMB interpretations (not you are dumb, your interpretations of what others are saying makes us seem dumb) that is insulting and just flat out wrong.

If you really think any of us know so little about matters like these, I am doing you a favor in assuming that you're just being rude.

So I don't really know what you're trying to say here... other than... you're right 'bone, I let my insultingly judgemental preconception cloud my response.

Quote:I didn't change what tank said - I asked for clarification of Tanq's statement. Given the lack of temporal data there, I was wondering what was notable about the request.

You asked for clarification of your flawed interpretation of what he... I wrote what you asked. They were not the same words he used.

It is notable because it is an all but inevitable part of the job... yet in the past, it has been argued that because (mostly Republican but ALWAYS men) someone got paid $700,000 in speaking fees by an organization, that they couldn't be objective. I don't know if Tanq is saying this to say that it wasn't a problem before but it is a problem now, or saying it to say that if it was a problem before, its a problem now.

That said, it would be insulting if I assumed that he meant that it wasn't a problem before but is now... making him a hypocrite. I suspect he thinks it isn't a problem.... but I don't know with certainty. I suspect he's just noting the milestone so that any future allegations of impartiality can be met with the precedent.

If I really wanted clarity on his position there, I wouldn't ask for it by saying... 'So you're being a hypocrite??' I mean, I'm just asking a question for clarity, right?

I MIGHT as if he were saying its always or never been a problem? That would be a question, not dripping with negative preconceptions.

Quote:As you said, the Treasury Sec will be meeting with these regulatory bodies regularly to discuss issues. Why is it particularly notable that she requested an ethics waiver to discuss a relevant issue? Much better she request one then ignore the possible conflict of interest there.

Seriously, do you think we'd need to have an ethics rule that says that the SecTreas can't get speaking fees to do their job description for which they get paid? Or if we did, that there would be a process to get around that?? That's exactly what you're suggesting, and I think you now realize how you simply hadn't thought that through.

Why do you think the rule exists? Why do you think the process for requesting a waiver from that rule exists? It exists because the appearance of conflicts are inevitable... and the process exists to make everyone aware of it and put everyone on notice... so WHY THE HELL do you think Tanq was suggesting that her use of it was ANYTHING other than exactly what he said it was... The first time a woman had done so.

To me, it actually opens up that exact question in reverse... Were you against it before and if so, is it now okay or not?

Quote:How is it ridiculous? I literally thought I was going to read an article about Yellen getting paid for a future speech, and she had the cojones to ask for an ethics waiver.

Now that you know better... now that you've actually read the article... when you go back and read what he wrote, do you read it any differently? How is 'what you thought' Tanq's or anyone else's responsibility if the words he used didn't actually imply that?

The fact that media outlets and troglodytes engage in such activity doesn't mean that we do on here... That's precisely the reason this forum exists. Instead so much of that 'low level' thinking has permeated this forum to lessen the level of discourse.

It is entirely my point that if such things were to happen... factual things... that they would be so universally egregious to be worthy of a thread of their own... and admonished by people on both sides of the aisle. They would not be buried on page 44 or whatever on a forum reserved for people with 'above average' intelligence and knowledge.

Quote:It was a bit of both. Would you prefer I jump down Tanq's throat instead and then make him defend a position he didn't take or an interpretation he didn't make?

That's the alternative to me asking him to clarify something that had ambiguity to it.

A polite insult is still an insult. The actual alternative is to simply ask him for clarification... and not to restate what you think he said using words he didn't use, and ask him to clarify the very words that you added.

This seems pretty clear and I don't know why you keep trying to defend the obvious.

Quote:You're arguing for me to do the alternative, which is jump to a conclusion based on the point I think Tanq is trying to make.

Not remotely.
If you don't know what he meant and you seek clarification, you shouldn't have a conclusion to jump to. Again, this seems obvious. If instead you've jumped to a conclusion, you can't then say that you sought clarification. This is you trying to do both... and that is precisely what I repeatedly find fault with.

Either own your interpretation of his words and let him show where you misinterpreted them... or ask for clarification without letting the conclusion that you've already jumped to cloud your response.

I am suggesting that a better, more cordial, more likely to be met with reasonable discourse would be to NOT jump to a conclusion and then try and innocently claim that you're only seeking clarification. Those two concepts are directly at odds.

Again, this seems pretty clear to me.

This is a really long post and I have only been following at arm's length but to the bolded... Ham is your contention that Tanq upon posting that link certainly had no issues with the waiver request but he was just bookmarking this for years down the road when another Secretary of Treasury makes a similar request? Because that seems odd.

When I saw Tanq post that I assuming that he took issue with the request. I didn't follow-up by reading his link (typically when his posts including classics like "Ose nose" I immediately skip forward to the next post).

I just think it's reasonable to assume that Tanq took issue with the request based on his posting it. That seems to be SOP for most of us posters here.

(02-04-2021 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why don't you think he's informed on such issues or intelligent enough to read the story as you did?

When did I stop beating my wife you ask?

It has nothing to do with whether I thought Tanq was informed on the issues or intelligent enough to read the story. It's that it wasn't clear to me what the criticism was of Yellen requesting a waiver.

The only way I thought that would look bad, was if she was requesting a waiver to speak to a Wall Street bank in the future, and be paid for it (not for her doing her job as you've said).

When I read the article and saw that she was requesting a waiver to discuss an issue related to a bank that had previously paid her a speaking fee, I didn't see what was particularly notable, let alone worthy of criticism.

As to your gigantic post - I appreciate how frequently you didn't take your own medicine... The bolded sentence being the best example of it.

(02-04-2021 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why don't you think he's informed on such issues or intelligent enough to read the story as you did?

When did I stop beating my wife you ask?

It has nothing to do with whether I thought Tanq was informed on the issues or intelligent enough to read the story. It's that it wasn't clear to me what the criticism was of Yellen requesting a waiver.

The only way I thought that would look bad, was if she was requesting a waiver to speak to a Wall Street bank in the future, and be paid for it (not for her doing her job as you've said).

When I read the article and saw that she was requesting a waiver to discuss an issue related to a bank that had previously paid her a speaking fee, I didn't see what was particularly notable, let alone worthy of criticism.

As to your gigantic post - I appreciate how frequently you didn't take your own medicine... The bolded sentence being the best example of it.

Why isn't the bolded just me asking for clarification, Lad? lol. See how stupid that sounds?

Quote:I'll start with the most glaring part of your response...
FIRST you said that you responded as you did because you hadn't read the article so you assumed he was claiming she was asking to get paid a fee to meet with them as part of her job. NOW you're moving the goal posts and saying that you HAD read the article, and didn't understand why he was criticising her for following the procedures for such an event.

Once again, trying to have it both ways. Either way, Tanq is to blame and not you.... and my point is that you assumed that he was criticising HER... and even THAT is only in evidence if you make some assumptions up front.

Quote:As to me not following my own advice... I made the allegation. I stand by it. That's the impression that your repeated comments leave. I'm not hiding behind a claim of innocence or blaming my misunderstanding on you. You haven't presented any evidence of me misunderstanding you... you've just claimed (in numerous ways) that it was somebody's fault other than your own that you had this preconception.

Quote:I'll use smaller, though less kind words.

The options are...
1) You aren't as smart as I think you are... You lack critical reading comprehension skills and repeatedly misinterpret people as a result. I don't think this is the truth, because you have on numerous occasions demonstrated the ability to comprehend complex subjects. This isn't one of them, but I think its because you simply can't accept your own bias or take any blame for them.... which leads me to :

2) You ARE reasonably smart with critical comprehension skills, but you are so caught up in your preconceptions and biases about people 'on the right' (or at least those of us on the right on this forum) that you read everything through 'D' colored glasses where Republicans are all single minded morons.

We can debate degrees of your condescension here... but I don't think you'd debate whether it is 1 or 2.

I suppose we could throw in 3... which is you think this is just a forum for slinging mud at each other with no attempt whatsoever to have actual discussions. If anyone believes this, please let me know and we can dismiss you from this forum. That is not its purpose, despite some clear disagreements. The point of this forum is debate on areas of disagreement... and not merely a Monty Python skit.

Your entire criticism, no matter how you want to spin it... is that you think Tanq doesn't know the subject of the article... OR that he doesn't know how common such an event might be.

He MAY think it concerning that she's only a few days into her post and already run into a conflict... but you not only seem to disagree with this (which would be fine) but apparently can't understand why it would ever concern anyone.

(02-04-2021 04:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, its possible to be intelligent but engage in 'stupid' acts...

(02-04-2021 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The reason I so often get in the middle of these is that this is what I see CONSTANTLY on here... where someone from the right says something that makes perfect sense to me (and I don't mean policy but the verbiage) and you seem to read something completely different... often something that makes the 'writer' sound ignorant. It's not a policy difference, but a difference of reading comprehension or language.

(02-04-2021 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can't remember which thread was the "slut" thread, so I will just stick this here.

Watching a new sitcom called "Resident Alien". This scene happens:

Two women fussing at each other. One calls the other "slut", and the other responds by calling the first one "skank".

questions:

1. Which one is the worse person?
2a-d. Should the writers for this show be released from their jobs? How about the actors? Producers? should we boycott the sponsors?

(02-04-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can't remember which thread was the "slut" thread, so I will just stick this here.

Watching a new sitcom called "Resident Alien". This scene happens:

Two women fussing at each other. One calls the other "slut", and the other responds by calling the first one "skank".

questions:

1. Which one is the worse person?
2a-d. Should the writers for this show be released from their jobs? How about the actors? Producers? should we boycott the sponsors?

Excellent point. While we're at it we should file a police report on Jean Claude Van Damme re: all those people he assaulted in "Hard Target" and "Double Impact".

(02-04-2021 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can't remember which thread was the "slut" thread, so I will just stick this here.

Watching a new sitcom called "Resident Alien". This scene happens:

Two women fussing at each other. One calls the other "slut", and the other responds by calling the first one "skank".

questions:

1. Which one is the worse person?
2a-d. Should the writers for this show be released from their jobs? How about the actors? Producers? should we boycott the sponsors?

Excellent point. While we're at it we should file a police report on Jean Claude Van Damme re: all those people he assaulted in "Hard Target" and "Double Impact".

Those were all men, not a protected class, so all is OK.


BTW, what were your answers?

(02-04-2021 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can't remember which thread was the "slut" thread, so I will just stick this here.

Watching a new sitcom called "Resident Alien". This scene happens:

Two women fussing at each other. One calls the other "slut", and the other responds by calling the first one "skank".

questions:

1. Which one is the worse person?
2a-d. Should the writers for this show be released from their jobs? How about the actors? Producers? should we boycott the sponsors?

Excellent point. While we're at it we should file a police report on Jean Claude Van Damme re: all those people he assaulted in "Hard Target" and "Double Impact".

Those were all men, not a protected class, so all is OK.


BTW, what were your answers?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I am confident that you know the difference between television and real life. Is your point that we should not castigate Owl#s for using the term "Kamala the slut" unless we are willing to boycott a TV show over the use of the term?

I mean... if Owl#'s decided to drop the N-word on this forum (not that he would) the fact that Stringer Bell uses that term on "The Wire" doesn't really play into the acceptability of using that term here.

(02-04-2021 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 07:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can't remember which thread was the "slut" thread, so I will just stick this here.

Watching a new sitcom called "Resident Alien". This scene happens:

Two women fussing at each other. One calls the other "slut", and the other responds by calling the first one "skank".

questions:

1. Which one is the worse person?
2a-d. Should the writers for this show be released from their jobs? How about the actors? Producers? should we boycott the sponsors?

Excellent point. While we're at it we should file a police report on Jean Claude Van Damme re: all those people he assaulted in "Hard Target" and "Double Impact".

Those were all men, not a protected class, so all is OK.


BTW, what were your answers?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I am confident that you know the difference between television and real life. Is your point that we should not castigate Owl#s for using the term "Kamala the slut" unless we are willing to boycott a TV show over the use of the term?

I mean... if Owl#'s decided to drop the N-word on this forum (not that he would) the fact that Stringer Bell uses that term on "The Wire" doesn't really play into the acceptability of using that term here.

My point would be that this is such a minor thing and yall are making a federal case out of it.

Quote:Never watched the Wire, but, as you know, Power and PowerbookII are full of that word. As well as a lot of other words you probably wouldn't like.

Quote:To the extent that such shows are meant to reflect reality, I think any question about word usage has meaningfulness. Still wondering if Numbers had referred to her as Kamala the Skank, if that would be better or worse to you, or the same.

Quote:If you choose to refer to her as Kamala the Saint, that would be OK with me. Even Kamala the Perfect. Up to you, IMO.

I think it funny that you would go to the mat to protect her good name.

Quote:Would you do the same for Trump the Molester? How about Biden the Molester?

Quote: Since June 1, 2020, a mental health clinician and a paramedic have traveled around the city in a white van handling low-level incidents, like trespassing and mental health episodes, that would have otherwise fallen to patrol officers with badges and guns. In its first six months, the Support Team Assisted Response program, or STAR, has responded to 748 incidents. None required police or led to arrests or jail time.

The civilian team handled close to six incidents a day from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, in high-demand neighborhoods. STAR does not yet have enough people or vans to respond to every nonviolent incident, but about 3 percent of calls for DPD service, or over 2,500 incidents, were worthy of the alternative approach, according to the report.

STAR represents a more empathetic approach to policing that keeps people out of an often-cyclical criminal justice system by connecting people with services like shelter, food aid, counseling, and medication. The program also deliberately cuts down on encounters between uniformed officers and civilians.

(02-04-2021 11:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd pop some more popcorn, but I'm ready to head to bed.

(02-05-2021 07:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd pop some more popcorn, but I'm ready to head to bed.

You have been a very successful internet troll. Just think of all the other offensive things you can say on this forum!

(02-05-2021 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 07:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd pop some more popcorn, but I'm ready to head to bed.

You have been a very successful internet troll. Just think of all the other offensive things you can say on this forum!

But I wasn't trolling. I meant what I said, and stand by it. Trolls hit and run. I've hung around longer than trolls do. But this has gotten way past the limits of absurdity.

Quote:In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. Typically they do this by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion.[3] This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process.

Quote:A person who posts remarks or comments onto internet forums or message boards in an attempt to get someone to comment negatively to it and to redirect attention onto himself. Usually, these remarks are controversial, stupid, off-topic, inflaming, illogical, or childish. Sometimes, the comments are enough to enrage the people in the forum to want to respond back with their own negative remarks which starts a flame war and changes the topic and attention of the discussion. Since, internet trolls are attention whores, this is exactly what they want since they probably don't get enough attention in real life and needs someone else to acknowledge their self-worth and existence. Nowadays, they are commonly found infesting internet forums and websites such as the GameFAQS Message Boards, youtube (most notably in the comments section), moviecodec, rpgcodex and many others. It is best to ignore them unless you want flame wars to engulf the forum.

(02-05-2021 08:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  from wikipedia:

Quote:In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. Typically they do this by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion.[3] This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process.

(02-05-2021 08:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 08:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  from wikipedia:

Quote:In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. Typically they do this by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion.[3] This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process.

But I didn't do that. The other posters turned it into that. That's why I'm popping popcorn.

Quote:I will admit that I may have used the wrong terminology. Kamala Harris clearly slept with a very powerful man who was married to another woman, contemporaneously with receiving significant assistance in the furtherance of her career from that powerful man. That much is freely acknowledged by both parties. A person who sleeps around in exchange for benefits is probably more properly called a prostitute or a wh***. A sl** is more like one who simply sleeps around for the pleasure of it.

I have been accused of sl**-shaming women--no, I referred very specifically to one and only one woman. And now I am being accused of trolling, in a thread where I never posted the comment.

Post all the Internet definitions you wish. They don't fit.