(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....