(10-13-2019 02:17 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 08:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 07:47 PM)Foff Wrote:  warren wasn't showing when she was extended. two months later, she was showing, was told she was being replaced, and was asked to resign. what's so hard to understand about the timeline?

Perhaps the combination of her own words *and* a constantly evolving narrative from her?

Quote:"By the end of the first year I was visibly pregnant

The documents clearly show the following:

Hiring in August 1970 ---- p. 3 of the link.
Provisional certificate requested in Nov 1970 --- p4 of the link
Extension late April 71 --- p9 of the link

The end of the first year is April. And she admits that she was visibly pregnant by the time of the offer.

That comports with the facts, since that child was born in very early September '71 --- putting late April the 4+ or 5- month mark.

Secondly in an interview in 2007

Quote:I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.”

In that interview she explicitly states that she didnt return because of the requirement of specialized courses that she needed.

Kind of a far cry from the 'Mad Men'-esque story that abounds today. But of course a tenured law professor (let alone an American Indian heritage law professor) doesnt need to fish for votes.....

There seems to be a constant evolution of the situation from her perspective.

What is your perspective of an ever changing narrative?

*That* is what is hard to understand about the timeline.

Why do you think she changed her story between 2007 and now? What is significant about *that* timeline? Maybe a couple of elections in the interim?

end of the first year was june, not april. nj school year ends in june.

can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse, or just a garden variety idiot.

Great example of a 'if you cant discuss, just go straight to the ad hom a--hole' case, I'd say. Awesome job there. Your teachers should be proud of that.

Assuming in arguendo your unverified and unsubstantiated statement of fact regarding that district for that year is true (care to show us a source? Or are you making an assumption without verification?) that doesnt even toouch on the other issues.

Here they are: still doesnt address the 4-5 month issue, or her statement to the contrary, or her change in the story line. Or did you hide your 'answer' in code somehow with the 'obtuse' or 'idiot' language? Crack response in toto, I'd say.

To get back to the issues, how do *you* explain her constantly evolving story about this? Give you confidence in her answer? Perhaps you can answer with a lack of direct ad hom, or that might be a stretch..... I guess we will see.

Here is what the physical proof shows:

The minutes of the local school-board meeting quite clearly document that Warren was offered a contract for further employment.

Later minutes show that she declined.

She was forthright and unambiguous in her account of the episode at earlier points in her life.

Her accounts parallel the issues in the school board minutes (i.e. she did not have the specialized classes to do the position at all).

But only in the midst of a political race she wraps herself in the cloak of a discriminated class.

And that action of wrapping herself in the cloak of a discriminated class also parallels her actions in the past.

In this case, she seems to have suddenly remembered the pregnancy discrimination, that is sometime after when she began advertising herself to the Ivy League as a Cherokee and the day when an actual DNA test finally shamed her into knocking it off.

Which of those facts above do you deny? Those are all *facts* of this issue. Nothing 'idiotic' or 'obtuse' about those facts. Funny that......

I guess it is lucky for the DNA test, as I am sure we would be subject to the horrors of racial discrimination shown her at this point without it.

More personal note here. I am always amused at someone who jumps immediately to the raw ad hom style. Dont see it much on this board. Snarky -- yes. I jump to snark quite quickly. Never straight to raw unambiguous ad hom such as you have shown.

Raw ad hom is an action typically reserved for more ignorant people whom I really dont associate with a Rice education. But from your name I will assume you have a seriously large chip on your shoulder about some, if not most, things. Only 5 posts to your credit and already to a snarling 'F--- off'. You chose your name well, son. Cant wait to see the regression in posts 6-10.