I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

(11-22-2019 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

Again -- does he have the same 'expertise' in Eastern European festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits. His 'specific topic' in the degree is 'Eastern European Studies', *that* is the degree you keep yelping about. That degree in no way gives him an automatic expertise in the specific subject. In lad wordl, then I guess Michel's comments about festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits should ipso facto be accorded 'extra expertise'. Got it. Sounds like a fing smashing idea.

I guess in a really stupid way you should buy the same shallow reasoning that my law degree makes me have 'expertise' in trusts, wills, and estates. It doesnt. Nor does it provide me 'extra weight to my opinion insights' into that narrow area.

Funnily, I would bet my life savings you wouldnt provide that 'extra weight' to me in opining in that area. Let alone stuff that is major league within my wheelhouse.

My comment is on your stupid ass reverence to a degree -- a piece of paper, in specific a 'Masters from Columbia'. That is seemingly the magic drum you keep banging on. And banging on. And banging on.

And in addition I am really still gobsmacked re: *your* treatment of our own OO in the same manner. Please do note for us where you you accord OO 'xtra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area', that is business operations and the effects of the regulatory process on them, because of his Masters? Funny, I dont remember them. Amazing, isnt it?

And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

Now, as a word of advice, perhaps you need to go home, look up Michel's thesis topic, and come back to us with a report. (heh, I get to be called racist now)

Once again, 'it may, or may not, add expertise to the piece.' No hubris at all re: a degree there son. Just a very common sense result that you dont seem to be really in tune with.

If that is too fing hard of a challenge to you to understand why that degree 'may or may not' add expertise, then here is a word of advice for you: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever offer your services as an opinion witness in litigation. You will get chewed up and spit out in record time.

(11-22-2019 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

Well this is a new twist on what was being argued.

Never said a degree being conferred = intelligence. I argued that it is a sign of expertise. Expertise is defined as "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

You're right that getting a degree is largely a matter of doing work. When it comes to post-secondary degrees, that work focuses more intensely on a particular field, which means you gain an expertise in said field.

You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

If you just disagree with his takes, that's ok.

(11-22-2019 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

Again -- does he have the same 'expertise' in Eastern European festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits. His 'specific topic' in the degree is 'Eastern European Studies', *that* is the degree you keep yelping about. That degree in no way gives him an automatic expertise in the specific subject. In lad wordl, then I guess Michel's comments about festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits should ipso facto be accorded 'extra expertise'. Got it. Sounds like a fing smashing idea.

I guess in a really stupid way you should buy the same shallow reasoning that my law degree makes me have 'expertise' in trusts, wills, and estates. It doesnt. Nor does it provide me 'extra weight to my opinion insights' into that narrow area.

Funnily, I would bet my life savings you wouldnt provide that 'extra weight' to me in opining in that area. Let alone stuff that is major league within my wheelhouse.

My comment is on your stupid ass reverence to a degree -- a piece of paper, in specific a 'Masters from Columbia'. That is seemingly the magic drum you keep banging on. And banging on. And banging on.

And in addition I am really still gobsmacked re: *your* treatment of our own OO in the same manner. Please do note for us where you you accord OO 'xtra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area', that is business operations and the effects of the regulatory process on them, because of his Masters? Funny, I dont remember them. Amazing, isnt it?

And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

Now, as a word of advice, perhaps you need to go home, look up Michel's thesis topic, and come back to us with a report. (heh, I get to be called racist now)

Once again, 'it may, or may not, add expertise to the piece.' No hubris at all re: a degree there son. Just a very common sense result that you dont seem to be really in tune with.

If that is too fing hard of a challenge to you to understand why that degree 'may or may not' add expertise, then here is a word of advice for you: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever offer your services as an opinion witness in litigation. You will get chewed up and spit out in record time.

As always, a lot to unpack. I'll take some quick hits.

Have I ever questioned OO's expertise in import/export? You say I don't afford him extra weight, but I don't believe I've ever question whether he has expertise in the area.

And you don't go out of your way to post opinion pieces. You posted two OPINION pieces by John Solomon to support your opinions of the Ukraine investigation. Both say: BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16392870

Michel's thesis title: Dismissing Disclosure and Free Agent Diplomacy Examining Innovations within Lobbying and Public Relations Approaches to Further the Reputational and Economic Benefits of Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan

Love that you take such umbrage with me saying that someone's educational background gives them expertise in the topic they studied. Amazing.

(11-22-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

Well this is a new twist on what was being argued.

Never said a degree being conferred = intelligence. I argued that it is a sign of expertise. Expertise is defined as "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

You're right that getting a degree is largely a matter of doing work. When it comes to post-secondary degrees, that work focuses more intensely on a particular field, which means you gain an expertise in said field.

You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Well, if a Ph.D. in women's studies makes one an expert on women, I sure wasted my youth studying business. I guess I could ask my first wife if we would still be together had I studied Women's studies.

The piece of paper does nothing more than give a presumption of knowledge - but I think you and I both know Ph.D.'s who are damn fools. And I also know highly intelligent and competent people with only a HS diploma or less.

So IMO, if this guy was a damn fool, it doesn't matter if he has continued to study and write, he is still a damn fool, just one with a CV that will impress those who choose to be impressed. I have no idea if he is one or not, but I will not grant him omniscience on the basis of degrees and publications.

(11-22-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

Well this is a new twist on what was being argued.

Never said a degree being conferred = intelligence. I argued that it is a sign of expertise. Expertise is defined as "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

You're right that getting a degree is largely a matter of doing work. When it comes to post-secondary degrees, that work focuses more intensely on a particular field, which means you gain an expertise in said field.

You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Well, if a Ph.D. in women's studies makes one an expert on women, I sure wasted my youth studying business. I guess I could ask my first wife if we would still be together had I studied Women's studies.

The piece of paper does nothing more than give a presumption of knowledge - but I think you and I both know Ph.D.'s who are damn fools. And I also know highly intelligent and competent people with only a HS diploma or less.

Again - I never argued that a degree denotes intelligence. Expertise and intelligence are distinctly different.

Are you intentionally arguing that studying a specific topic does not increase one's knowledge of the topic???

(11-22-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

Well this is a new twist on what was being argued.

Never said a degree being conferred = intelligence. I argued that it is a sign of expertise. Expertise is defined as "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

You're right that getting a degree is largely a matter of doing work. When it comes to post-secondary degrees, that work focuses more intensely on a particular field, which means you gain an expertise in said field.

You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Well, if a Ph.D. in women's studies makes one an expert on women, I sure wasted my youth studying business. I guess I could ask my first wife if we would still be together had I studied Women's studies.

The piece of paper does nothing more than give a presumption of knowledge - but I think you and I both know Ph.D.'s who are damn fools. And I also know highly intelligent and competent people with only a HS diploma or less.

Again - I never argued that a degree denotes intelligence. Expertise and intelligence are distinctly different.

Are you intentionally arguing that studying a specific topic does not increase one's knowledge of the topic???

Sometimes that it true. Studying accounting increased my knowledge of accounting. And yes, I won a prize for one of my papers in accounting. That does not make me a good choice to do your taxes, simple as I suspect they are. But studying marketing did not make me a marketing expert. Studying economics did not prepare me for going on TV to predict the market. But I sure have that piece of paper that some might find an important credential. They might presume I knew what I was talking about. But apparently you have seen through through my facade.

(11-22-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I run int people all the time who think having a Ph.D. ir two master's means you are smart.

I think a person with a 120 IQ who goes through a graduate program and graduates, does so with a piece of paper and a 120 IQ.

Earning degrees is largely a matter of doing the work. My sister has several. I have to take care of her. Despite her doctorate earned in Switzerland.

As for expertise gained from actually being in a country, I guess that makes me an expert on Mexico. I wonder why Lad will not defer to to my expertise on matters Mexican. But he does not.

Well this is a new twist on what was being argued.

Never said a degree being conferred = intelligence. I argued that it is a sign of expertise. Expertise is defined as "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

You're right that getting a degree is largely a matter of doing work. When it comes to post-secondary degrees, that work focuses more intensely on a particular field, which means you gain an expertise in said field.

You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Well, if a Ph.D. in women's studies makes one an expert on women, I sure wasted my youth studying business. I guess I could ask my first wife if we would still be together had I studied Women's studies.

The piece of paper does nothing more than give a presumption of knowledge - but I think you and I both know Ph.D.'s who are damn fools. And I also know highly intelligent and competent people with only a HS diploma or less.

Again - I never argued that a degree denotes intelligence. Expertise and intelligence are distinctly different.

Are you intentionally arguing that studying a specific topic does not increase one's knowledge of the topic???

Sometimes that it true. Studying accounting increased my knowledge of accounting. And yes, I won a prize for one of my papers in accounting. That does not make me a good choice to do your taxes, simple as I suspect they are. But studying marketing did not make me a marketing expert. Studying economics did not prepare me for going on TV to predict the market. But I sure have that piece of paper that some might find an important credential. They might presume I knew what I was talking about. But apparently you have seen through through my facade.

But now we're talking about the validity of your analysis, not whether you have the expertise to discuss it.

Y'all are trying to make it sound like I said Michel was infallible - I simply said his schooling and background indicate he has an expertise in the topic, which means he likely knows what he is talking about.

I find it a bit troubling how quickly you and Tanq are happy to dismiss someone's overall qualifications.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

(11-22-2019 10:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

Probably spent some time living in that part of the world, studying it, researching it, and writing about it...

(11-22-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

Again -- does he have the same 'expertise' in Eastern European festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits. His 'specific topic' in the degree is 'Eastern European Studies', *that* is the degree you keep yelping about. That degree in no way gives him an automatic expertise in the specific subject. In lad wordl, then I guess Michel's comments about festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits should ipso facto be accorded 'extra expertise'. Got it. Sounds like a fing smashing idea.

I guess in a really stupid way you should buy the same shallow reasoning that my law degree makes me have 'expertise' in trusts, wills, and estates. It doesnt. Nor does it provide me 'extra weight to my opinion insights' into that narrow area.

Funnily, I would bet my life savings you wouldnt provide that 'extra weight' to me in opining in that area. Let alone stuff that is major league within my wheelhouse.

My comment is on your stupid ass reverence to a degree -- a piece of paper, in specific a 'Masters from Columbia'. That is seemingly the magic drum you keep banging on. And banging on. And banging on.

And in addition I am really still gobsmacked re: *your* treatment of our own OO in the same manner. Please do note for us where you you accord OO 'xtra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area', that is business operations and the effects of the regulatory process on them, because of his Masters? Funny, I dont remember them. Amazing, isnt it?

And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

Now, as a word of advice, perhaps you need to go home, look up Michel's thesis topic, and come back to us with a report. (heh, I get to be called racist now)

Once again, 'it may, or may not, add expertise to the piece.' No hubris at all re: a degree there son. Just a very common sense result that you dont seem to be really in tune with.

If that is too fing hard of a challenge to you to understand why that degree 'may or may not' add expertise, then here is a word of advice for you: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever offer your services as an opinion witness in litigation. You will get chewed up and spit out in record time.

As always, a lot to unpack. I'll take some quick hits.

Have I ever questioned OO's expertise in import/export? You say I don't afford him extra weight, but I don't believe I've ever question whether he has expertise in the area.

And you don't go out of your way to post opinion pieces. You posted two OPINION pieces by John Solomon to support your opinions of the Ukraine investigation. Both say: BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16392870

Great I posted one. One. I tend not to. I try not to. That is the point. One that appears lost on you.

Quote:Michel's thesis title: Dismissing Disclosure and Free Agent Diplomacy Examining Innovations within Lobbying and Public Relations Approaches to Further the Reputational and Economic Benefits of Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan

Love that you take such umbrage with me saying that someone's educational background gives them expertise in the topic they studied. Amazing.

Uhh..... I suggest you actually note what the topic of the title is and the current subject. I mean, like your caterwaul on the SPLC stuff, its like you dont even fing read **** before posting.

Quote:You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Funny, you still take a dump on OO when he opines on subjects that he has those many of those boxes checked off in. I guess you never bothered to notice that.

Lolz.

As for the lived/worked in an area -- you take a double strength dump on OO's experience with immigrants. Funny that. I mean you actually literally call him ignorant at times.....

Dont you see the absolute funny hypocrisy you enjoin with this?

(11-22-2019 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

Again -- does he have the same 'expertise' in Eastern European festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits. His 'specific topic' in the degree is 'Eastern European Studies', *that* is the degree you keep yelping about. That degree in no way gives him an automatic expertise in the specific subject. In lad wordl, then I guess Michel's comments about festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits should ipso facto be accorded 'extra expertise'. Got it. Sounds like a fing smashing idea.

I guess in a really stupid way you should buy the same shallow reasoning that my law degree makes me have 'expertise' in trusts, wills, and estates. It doesnt. Nor does it provide me 'extra weight to my opinion insights' into that narrow area.

Funnily, I would bet my life savings you wouldnt provide that 'extra weight' to me in opining in that area. Let alone stuff that is major league within my wheelhouse.

My comment is on your stupid ass reverence to a degree -- a piece of paper, in specific a 'Masters from Columbia'. That is seemingly the magic drum you keep banging on. And banging on. And banging on.

And in addition I am really still gobsmacked re: *your* treatment of our own OO in the same manner. Please do note for us where you you accord OO 'xtra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area', that is business operations and the effects of the regulatory process on them, because of his Masters? Funny, I dont remember them. Amazing, isnt it?

And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

Now, as a word of advice, perhaps you need to go home, look up Michel's thesis topic, and come back to us with a report. (heh, I get to be called racist now)

Once again, 'it may, or may not, add expertise to the piece.' No hubris at all re: a degree there son. Just a very common sense result that you dont seem to be really in tune with.

If that is too fing hard of a challenge to you to understand why that degree 'may or may not' add expertise, then here is a word of advice for you: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever offer your services as an opinion witness in litigation. You will get chewed up and spit out in record time.

As always, a lot to unpack. I'll take some quick hits.

Have I ever questioned OO's expertise in import/export? You say I don't afford him extra weight, but I don't believe I've ever question whether he has expertise in the area.

And you don't go out of your way to post opinion pieces. You posted two OPINION pieces by John Solomon to support your opinions of the Ukraine investigation. Both say: BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16392870

Great I posted one. One. I tend not to. I try not to. That is the point. One that appears lost on you.

Quote:Michel's thesis title: Dismissing Disclosure and Free Agent Diplomacy Examining Innovations within Lobbying and Public Relations Approaches to Further the Reputational and Economic Benefits of Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan

Love that you take such umbrage with me saying that someone's educational background gives them expertise in the topic they studied. Amazing.

Uhh..... I suggest you actually note what the topic of the title is and the current subject. I mean, like your caterwaul on the SPLC stuff, its like you dont even fing read **** before posting.

Why are you getting worked up over me posting Michel's thesis title?

I went ahead and looked it up for you, since you asked. It does not specifically focus on Ukraine, but it points towards what I said he had expertise in originally: "The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs."

Does being so pompous get in the way of you recognizing when someone answers a question you asked?

When you asked that question, did you expect me to lie about it or avoid it?

(11-22-2019 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

Probably spent some time living in that part of the world, studying it, researching it, and writing about it...

Then you should readily subscribe to OO's viewpoints on illegal immigration wholeheartedly. Or his comments on illegals not using the banking system and using primarily a cash economy. He matches all those boxes on that. Nah, you just call him ignorant from time to time.

Or is 'writing about it' now the magic lad-elixir? This is fing comedy gold at this point.

(11-22-2019 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:You're literally trying to argue that someone who lived/worked in an area, then went through a multiple year program studying that area, and then continued to research and write about that area, doesn't have an expertise in that area.

I am befuddled, but not shocked.

Funny, you still take a dump on OO when he opines on subjects that he has those many of those boxes checked off in. I guess you never bothered to notice that.

Lolz.

As for the lived/worked in an area -- you take a double strength dump on OO's experience with immigrants. Funny that. I mean you actually literally call him ignorant at times.....

Dont you see the absolute funny hypocrisy you enjoin with this?

You're really quite confused here. I don't dump on OO's expertise - if I do, please show me where and I'll make amends.

Disagreeing within someone's opinions is different than saying they don't know what their talking about or don't have expertise in an area. That's a really basic idea.

(11-22-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have no idea if he is one or not, but I will not grant him omniscience on the basis of degrees and publications.

Again, as I noted, he may, or may not, have the expertise. lad doesnt seem to get the point that a 'graduate degree' is not a sine qua non for expertise.

lad actually takes offense that the piece of paper is not an automatic granting of expertise.

and he truly does not seem to note the hypocrisy he exhibits in the automatic lauding of expertise in one case, and the utter dismissal of those same types of 'chops' with others.

(11-22-2019 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 10:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

Again -- does he have the same 'expertise' in Eastern European festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits. His 'specific topic' in the degree is 'Eastern European Studies', *that* is the degree you keep yelping about. That degree in no way gives him an automatic expertise in the specific subject. In lad wordl, then I guess Michel's comments about festivals involving gnomes and Angora rabbits should ipso facto be accorded 'extra expertise'. Got it. Sounds like a fing smashing idea.

I guess in a really stupid way you should buy the same shallow reasoning that my law degree makes me have 'expertise' in trusts, wills, and estates. It doesnt. Nor does it provide me 'extra weight to my opinion insights' into that narrow area.

Funnily, I would bet my life savings you wouldnt provide that 'extra weight' to me in opining in that area. Let alone stuff that is major league within my wheelhouse.

My comment is on your stupid ass reverence to a degree -- a piece of paper, in specific a 'Masters from Columbia'. That is seemingly the magic drum you keep banging on. And banging on. And banging on.

And in addition I am really still gobsmacked re: *your* treatment of our own OO in the same manner. Please do note for us where you you accord OO 'xtra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area', that is business operations and the effects of the regulatory process on them, because of his Masters? Funny, I dont remember them. Amazing, isnt it?

And trust me, I go out of my way to avoid posting opinion pieces. Now that I know that all is needed is a master's degree to gain your undying love, I will make sure to ram that down your throat everytime given your undying reverence for those types of degrees.

Now, as a word of advice, perhaps you need to go home, look up Michel's thesis topic, and come back to us with a report. (heh, I get to be called racist now)

Once again, 'it may, or may not, add expertise to the piece.' No hubris at all re: a degree there son. Just a very common sense result that you dont seem to be really in tune with.

If that is too fing hard of a challenge to you to understand why that degree 'may or may not' add expertise, then here is a word of advice for you: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever offer your services as an opinion witness in litigation. You will get chewed up and spit out in record time.

As always, a lot to unpack. I'll take some quick hits.

Have I ever questioned OO's expertise in import/export? You say I don't afford him extra weight, but I don't believe I've ever question whether he has expertise in the area.

And you don't go out of your way to post opinion pieces. You posted two OPINION pieces by John Solomon to support your opinions of the Ukraine investigation. Both say: BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16392870

Great I posted one. One. I tend not to. I try not to. That is the point. One that appears lost on you.

Quote:Michel's thesis title: Dismissing Disclosure and Free Agent Diplomacy Examining Innovations within Lobbying and Public Relations Approaches to Further the Reputational and Economic Benefits of Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan

Love that you take such umbrage with me saying that someone's educational background gives them expertise in the topic they studied. Amazing.

Uhh..... I suggest you actually note what the topic of the title is and the current subject. I mean, like your caterwaul on the SPLC stuff, its like you dont even fing read **** before posting.

Why are you getting worked up over me posting Michel's thesis title?

I went ahead and looked it up for you, since you asked. It does not specifically focus on Ukraine, but it points towards what I said he had expertise in originally: "The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs."

Does being so pompous get in the way of you recognizing when someone answers a question you asked?

When you asked that question, did you expect me to lie about it or avoid it?

Then thank you for posting it. If you note, the title (and I will assume the subject) really doesnt match the content of the article we are talking about. That is the point lad. But brownie points and stars for you for looking it up and posting it.

And again, your point about is being generally about 'East European Affairs' runs afoul of the same issue I ntoed more than once. Using your paean to East European Affairs I assume makes him have expertise with Ukrainian festivals with gnomes and Angora bunnies as well in your mind. Good for you. Whatever blows your hair back, lad.

As for your comment on 'pompous' -- f-ck off twerp. Guess that makes us even. (Changing this to the twerp millenial level of the phrase than lad seemingly enjoys) --

Edited to add: actually it doesnt. I seem to remember, just in the last 10 days or two weeks, of being labeled 'intentionally ignorant' (paraphrase there laddy, just so you dont get your knickers wet in that it might have been 'intentionally dense' or somefink), having 'hubris', and now "pompous." All for actually having the fing temerity of actually not necessarily subscribing to the belief system of lad boy in for the latter two ad homs in terms of what a masters degree should engender for life, the universe, and everything; and the 'intentionally ignorant' for actually reading the gd base materials that laddy boy was railing on, and the difference between nationalist and white nationalist.

I certainly would wish that lad utilize the reflexive power of observation when he seems to like to toss out those very explicit ad homs on a fairly regular basis. Perhaps you should put that into your coffee (or ) grinder and think about for a bit lad. Or not. No skin off my back.

But then again, I find it amusing that when lad *chooses* to use the very explicit ad homs of 'ignorant', and 'hubris', and 'pompous' (on a fairly regular schedule these days , it appears) -- he also gets triggered for the 'excessively antagonistic' use of the word 'though' (again lad, a paraphrase). In-fing amazing..... You cant *even* make this sh-t up....

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

(11-22-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To file under the proverbial 'not enough smoke' banner, or the 'you must be completely daft to believe the NatSec apparatus would subvert an investigation into Trump' banner.

“FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe.”

Quote:An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

Quote:Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

…The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

By the way, this is not the 'lets edit the 302 after the first one didnt do the job' that Strzok and Page are seemingly occupied with presently.

Yep, some of us were completely daft to think some investigator's fingers were on the scale in the debacle and that smoke was present. [sarcasm off] Notwithstanding what others might have opined.

It will be interesting to see what the IG report states on the mess.

Will be very interesting to see what comes out regarding those changes, especially since, as the report says, it changed the meaning of the document. Was it a correction? Or was it intentional obfuscation/lying?

I do note that you left out a very crucial sentence from the paragraph you copied. From where you left off:

Quote:...came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources. According to the Washington Post, it did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis.

Wonder if the WashPo reporting is truthful.

Is it copacetic to have a member of law enforcement change any document after the fact, and in a way to alter its meaning? If so, sounds like another smashing defense there from lad-world.

Bluntly, it is fing immaterial what effect it had, the stark fact is that there was an active effort to change underlying documents at that level, and in that manner. I guess the implications of that overall are minimized to you given your comment above about how I *forgot* to include that. The simple issue is that it is fundamentally immaterial given the allegation. Good fing grief.

I mean literally this is the sequence paraphrased:

Me: Someone is going to be charged from within the FBI for altering documents to change their meaning in the Russiagate investigation.
You: Well, you *forgot* to note it had no bearing on on the outcome of the FISA outcome.

Actually the reporting on this notes that the altered document was actually used in the course of the application. So not only is there a 'change in the document to alter its meaning' there is the continued *use* of it in its altered form to gain a FISA warrant. Apparently in a knowing manner by at the very least the person who altered the document. But I guess the important thing is that it 'didnt alter the outcome' to you. Great spot to hang your hat on lad.

Do you see how fing inane your comment is in light of the import of the first point? Jeezus H. Krist.

Couple it with the after the fact editing of Flynn's 302. Or do you know why Flynn hasnt been sentenced yet? Do you even follow that saga? I guess there is no fing smoke in lad world over either of these 'after the fact changes' by law enforcement, let alone that combination. Must be copacetic since the first one 'didnt change an outcome'. Given that, do you believe that the changing of the 302 qafter the fact by Strzok and his partner is copacetic since it 'didnt change the outcome'? If you think that, I suggest you talk to Flynn and his lawyer about that. But yet you apparently think it okay, since 'they didnt change an outcome'. Lolz.

The problem with the Russiagate 'get Trump at all costs' seemingly is bearing fruit in terms of indicating a rot and a willingness to actually change the tone and scope of documents at a fairly senior level and scope. Worth it to you now?

By the way, are you aware that WashPo memory-holed the paragraph where it stated that the person whom I just commented on worked under Strzok? Why do you think the WashPo **** canned that paragraph?