Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither.

Another reason why I would not go to Rice today if I had it to do now.

Covid is just another vehicle for Rice students involved in campus-wide government to boss others around. Same thing happened with drinking and various “task forces” policing private parties / gatherings

(11-28-2020 10:07 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Covid is just another vehicle for Rice students involved in campus-wide government to boss others around. Same thing happened with drinking and various “task forces” policing private parties / gatherings

Few things turn out worse than giving a bunch of power to people who think they are smarter than anyone else.

(11-28-2020 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 10:07 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Covid is just another vehicle for Rice students involved in campus-wide government to boss others around. Same thing happened with drinking and various “task forces” policing private parties / gatherings

Few things turn out worse than giving a bunch of power to people who think they are smarter than anyone else.

Like we just did earlier this month.

(11-28-2020 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://www.thecollegefix.com/rice-unive...violators/

Hey Rice made the news!

Really weird that this article links some of these students’ Facebook pages.

I read the Texas Monthly article a few weeks ago, it was well written and thought the ending was illuminating. I think a lot of universities are experimenting with how to manage transmission on campus to allow for on-campus classes and living without outbreaks. None will be perfect, and there isn’t exactly a model out there for all to follow. I appreciate the Rice’s approach at least relies on students being actively involved, but I worry about the paranoia it very clearly creates.

I’ve dealt with this when it comes to H&S at industrial facilities. The places I worked where H&S was more of a cultural component were always better to work at - you didn’t deal with workers trying to rat on you and get you in trouble, but rather they would try and correct issues so you weren’t hurt. When H&S was less part of the culture, it often seemed like people were on the look out for infractions to get you in trouble and not actually make a safe environment.

Rice could learn something from this and try and foster an environment less about narcing and more about actively correcting unsafe behaviors - leave the narcing for serious infractions that are intentional and clearly flouting rules.

(11-28-2020 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rice could learn something from this and try and foster an environment less about narcing and more about actively correcting unsafe behaviors - leave the narcing for serious infractions that are intentional and clearly flouting rules.

Could, but unfortunately probably won't. My era's Rice would have done so, but I don't see that any more.

Rice is not culturally the university that I attended, and I think the worse for it.

These last few posts remind me of a mealtime conversation at one of the colleges a few years ago. The students had been debating a proposed set of "quiet hours" and related rules for the college, and there was a lot of discussion about what the details of the rules should be. They asked me how it worked at my college when I was a student. I explained that we had almost no explicit rules; rather, when someone was doing something that tended to ruin things for others, one of the college court members or the RA or the Master would put a hand on that student's shoulder (often literally, but certainly figuratively) and say "Don't do that". Since the court (at least at my college), the RAs, and the Masters were people who were respected, that sort of admonition worked -- not only in the immediate instance, but for the future as well.

The students I was telling this to looked at me as if I was describing an alien universe. The idea of a community based on relationships rather than regulations seemed strange to them -- an intriguing hypothetical, perhaps, but not something they could seriously consider.

Granted, there were some structural advanagtes in my student days that helped make this sort of community work, including:
1. We had long-serving RAs who were tenured faculty.
2. The colleges were much smaller.
3. We had nearly 100% attendance at meals, and in particular at family-style dinner.

Re #2 and #3, I know several Masters and RAs who served then and later, and without hesitation they point to these as factors that contributed to a sense of community which, in their judgment, is simply no longer possible in the current colleges.

Strikingly, these changes are not a case of inevitable evolution. Rather, over a period of about two decades, each of the factors I mentioned was altered not by accident, but by deliberate (and probably unwise) policy decisions.

(11-28-2020 03:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  These last few posts remind me of a mealtime conversation at one of the colleges a few years ago. The students had been debating a proposed set of "quiet hours" and related rules for the college, and there was a lot of discussion about what the details of the rules should be. They asked me how it worked at my college when I was a student. I explained that we had almost no explicit rules; rather, when someone was doing something that tended to ruin things for others, one of the college court members or the RA or the Master would put a hand on that student's shoulder (often literally, but certainly figuratively) and say "Don't do that". Since the court (at least at my college), the RAs, and the Masters were people who were respected, that sort of admonition worked -- not only in the immediate instance, but for the future as well.
The students I was telling this to looked at me as if I was describing an alien universe. The idea of a community based on relationships rather than regulations seemed strange to them -- an intriguing hypothetical, perhaps, but not something they could seriously consider.
Granted, there were some structural advanagtes in my student days that helped make this sort of community work, including:
1. We had long-serving RAs who were tenured faculty.
2. The colleges were much smaller.
3. We had nearly 100% attendance at meals, and in particular at family-style dinner.
Re #2 and #3, I know several Masters and RAs who served then and later, and without hesitation they point to these as factors that contributed to a sense of community which, in their judgment, is simply no longer possible in the current colleges.
Strikingly, these changes are not a case of inevitable evolution. Rather, over a period of about two decades, each of the factors I mentioned was altered not by accident, but by deliberate (and probably unwise) policy decisions.

I get the impression that the food is significantly better under the current servery approach, but I have also wondered if the lack of the family-style sit-down dinner hasn't contributed to a loss of community feeling. That community feeling was one of the things that I felt strongest about enhancing my Rice experience, and I just don't think it's there these days.

I don't know if it's anywhere else, either, but I think Rice has lost it, and is the poorer for having done so.

(11-28-2020 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 03:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  These last few posts remind me of a mealtime conversation at one of the colleges a few years ago. The students had been debating a proposed set of "quiet hours" and related rules for the college, and there was a lot of discussion about what the details of the rules should be. They asked me how it worked at my college when I was a student. I explained that we had almost no explicit rules; rather, when someone was doing something that tended to ruin things for others, one of the college court members or the RA or the Master would put a hand on that student's shoulder (often literally, but certainly figuratively) and say "Don't do that". Since the court (at least at my college), the RAs, and the Masters were people who were respected, that sort of admonition worked -- not only in the immediate instance, but for the future as well.
The students I was telling this to looked at me as if I was describing an alien universe. The idea of a community based on relationships rather than regulations seemed strange to them -- an intriguing hypothetical, perhaps, but not something they could seriously consider.
Granted, there were some structural advanagtes in my student days that helped make this sort of community work, including:
1. We had long-serving RAs who were tenured faculty.
2. The colleges were much smaller.
3. We had nearly 100% attendance at meals, and in particular at family-style dinner.
Re #2 and #3, I know several Masters and RAs who served then and later, and without hesitation they point to these as factors that contributed to a sense of community which, in their judgment, is simply no longer possible in the current colleges.
Strikingly, these changes are not a case of inevitable evolution. Rather, over a period of about two decades, each of the factors I mentioned was altered not by accident, but by deliberate (and probably unwise) policy decisions.

I get the impression that the food is significantly better under the current servery approach,...

It is indeed worlds better. But the funny thing is: when you think about, as long as the food is edible, food quality is one of the least important aspects of college life -- but it sure is one that people like to ascribe importance to.

(11-28-2020 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...but I have also wondered if the lack of the family-style sit-down dinner hasn't contributed to a loss of community feeling. That community feeling was one of the things that I felt strongest about enhancing my Rice experience, and I just don't think it's there these days.

I don't know if it's anywhere else, either, but I think Rice has lost it, and is the poorer for having done so.

Every single person I know who was closely involved with the residential colleges before and after the demise of seated dinners has said that the effect of the change on college life has been noticeable and negative.

Again, the sad thing is that this change didn't happen by inevitable evolution, or even by unforeseen accident. It is the result of deliberate policy decisions.

Turning back to the undecided Election results, if you watched the Michigan hearings yesterday night live (was not too hard to find if you avoided the lying Communist MSM), you would have seen something extraordinary, and any True patriotic American Citizen would have been proud of the Brave American Citizens who stood up and braved the gauntlet to tell the TRUTH for everyone to hear, at great peril and personal risk to themselves and their families. We should all be grateful and owe a debt of deference for their bravery and patriotism, and the Black Supremacist legislator (who does NOT speak for all of us citizens who may happen to be Black and who are good and conscientious citizens and patriots) on the committee from Michigan should not only be ashamed at her blatant Racism against those testifying, all of whom had already filed the same testimony Under Oath, under penalty of perjury and prison, and who admitted they understood clearly as such, she should be reprimanded and disciplined for Contempt for her anti-American behavior and her hatred for all to see:

There are four traditional types of Evidence:
Real,
Demonstrative,
Documentary,
and Testimonial.
Some rules of evidence apply to all four types and some apply only to some or one of them.

The basic prerequisites of admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. In general, if evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent, and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. Evid. Code § 351; Fed. Rules Evid. 402.

Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency in reason to make the fact that it is offered to prove or disprove either more or less probable. Evid. Code § 210; Fed. Rules Evid. 401. To be relevant, a particular item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more probable than not. All that is required is that it have some tendency to increase the likelihood of the fact for which it is offered. Weighing the evidence is for the finder of fact, and although a particular piece of evidence, standing by itself, may be weak, it will be admitted unless it is otherwise incompetent or it runs afoul of an exclusionary rule.

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case.

Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness. It will be admissible when, with accuracy sufficient for the task at hand, it fairly and accurately reflects that testimony and is otherwise unobjectionable.

Documentary evidence is often a kind of real evidence, as for example where a contract is offered to prove its terms. When a document is used this way it is authenticated the same way as any other real evidence--by a witness who identifies it or, less commonly, by witnesses who establish a chain of custody for it. However, because they contain human language, and because of the historical development of the common law, documents present special problems not presented by other forms of real evidence, such as when they contain hearsay.

Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility. See Evid. Code § 702(b); Fed R. Evid. 602. It consists of what is said in the court at the proceeding in question by a competent witness.

In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:

1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.

2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.

3. He must remember what he perceived.

4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1).


All the testimony presented yesterday by the witnesses that saw election fraud in Michigan yesterday meet the requirements for their testimony and accounts of what actually happened to be admissible. Their accounts count as Evidence, of which there are Hundreds of additional testimonies, filed under Oath and protected by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Anyone here who claims there is no evidence is lying at best, and an accessory to participating in and covering up the massive Election fraud at worst.

God Bless these brave Americans who have suffered much to come forward to present the TRUTH to the American people. The Woman immigrant legal citizen originally from India who spoke alongside the other gentleman was particularly credible and accurate about the massive Election fraud. She even had written down table numbers, serial numbers and sequence numbers of the specific Fraud, and knew the actual streets where the alleged fake votes were attributed to come from. The fact that so many mail-in ballots were presented IN SEQUENCE one after the other to be counted is one of the most Damning pieces of Evidence presented so far. Equivalent to robbing a bank and then spending the money which was printed with sequential serial numbers. True and Obvious proof of Fraud and Crime.

Any conscientious and reasonable American Citizen would demand the results be thrown out and either a do-over election, in person with only paper ballots, no electronic machines or counting and proof of ID or a Legal move by the State Legislatures, as provided by Article 2 of the US Constitution for exactly such cases by the Founding Fathers who knew this kind of thing would happen from time to time, and remove the Biden electors replacing them with a new, clean slate of Electors charged with awarding the states' Electoral votes to the candidate who actually won the state's votes without fraud. Sorry, Dems, but that would be president trump. You dun f#c%ed up this one and you deserve to go to JAIL.

This brave Woman is an American hero. SHE should run for office herself as she understands what American freedom is all about! (watch before they take it down?)

Here's Hima Kolanagireddy's full testimony if you're curious and didn't watch the Michigan hearings last night ('cause Sloe's socks were more important news!) She also fully assented to being placed under oath, and stated her testimony is the same as she already provided under oath in affidavit, subject to jail if she is lying. She is a brave patriot. This is admissible Evidence. And there are literally HUNDREDS of others on file with the various courts.

Note the unhinged democrat Black Supremacist and her racism towards this innocent and credible woman, who wanted to help because she loves this country; oh, and Hima's a LEGAL immigrant--something Democrats hate! She calls out the racism she actually saw and experienced herself. "I can think for myself!"




This woman was exceptional. She did a great job explaining the situation. It is an honor that we have her as a citizen of the USA. She is very intelligent and presented herself so beautifully. Thank you for your courage and God bless you, Hima!

Voter Group in Georgia Has Identified More than 50,000 Illegal Votes – Enough Votes to Move Georgia to Trump Column

Quote:More corruption in Georgia ballots is uncovered. The reversal of these illegal votes could put the state in the Trump column.

One of many volunteer groups, a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm says it has found that about 40,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 3 general election. Mark Davis, President of Data Productions, Inc. and considered an expert in five court cases concerning election disputes found 40,239 people who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election and voted in their old county, which is illegal according to Georgia law. Those 40,239 people who voted failed to register their new address in time to vote in their new county, and according to the law they cannot vote in either county until they do.

40,239 illegal votes are more than triple the size of the current margins in the Presidential race as Joe Biden is listed as being approximately 12,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump.

The same group also found over 10,000 individuals who voted in the 2020 election who no longer live in the state, which is also illegal

The analysis also found that 267,255 people notified the USPS that they moved outside the state of Georgia, which means they are no longer eligible to vote in the state, yet, 14,980 of those people allegedly voted in the 2020 election in Georgia, 100 percent of them illegally.

President Trump was leading in Georgia by more than 100,000 votes on election night. Then counting stopped as water main break was reported in Atlanta. To this day there is no evidence that the water main brake occurred. Next tens of thousands of ballots were counted that appeared after the election. These votes were nearly all for Joe Biden and the result was Joe Biden stealing the state.
Currently Biden leads President Trump by around 10,000 votes in Georgia. The above votes could very easily turn over Georgia for President Trump. For some reason, the politicians in Georgia are not willing to address these many corrupt issues in the election. This is an infringement on all Americans’ rights.

(12-03-2020 12:58 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Here's Hima Kolanagireddy's full testimony if you're curious and didn't watch the Michigan hearings last night ('cause Sloe's socks were more important news!) She also fully assented to being placed under oath, and stated her testimony is the same as she already provided under oath in affidavit, subject to jail if she is lying. She is a brave patriot. This is admissible Evidence. And there are literally HUNDREDS of others on file with the various courts.

Note the unhinged democrat Black Supremacist and her racism towards this innocent and credible woman, who wanted to help because she loves this country; oh, and Hima's a LEGAL immigrant--something Democrats hate! She calls out the racism she actually saw and experienced herself. "I can think for myself!"




This woman was exceptional. She did a great job explaining the situation. It is an honor that we have her as a citizen of the USA. She is very intelligent and presented herself so beautifully. Thank you for your courage and God bless you, Hima!

Is that the same woman who said all Chinese people look alike to her?

Made me chuckle when I heard that line.

(12-03-2020 01:45 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Voter Group in Georgia Has Identified More than 50,000 Illegal Votes – Enough Votes to Move Georgia to Trump Column

Quote:More corruption in Georgia ballots is uncovered. The reversal of these illegal votes could put the state in the Trump column.

One of many volunteer groups, a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm says it has found that about 40,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 3 general election. Mark Davis, President of Data Productions, Inc. and considered an expert in five court cases concerning election disputes found 40,239 people who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election and voted in their old county, which is illegal according to Georgia law. Those 40,239 people who voted failed to register their new address in time to vote in their new county, and according to the law they cannot vote in either county until they do.

40,239 illegal votes are more than triple the size of the current margins in the Presidential race as Joe Biden is listed as being approximately 12,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump.

The same group also found over 10,000 individuals who voted in the 2020 election who no longer live in the state, which is also illegal

The analysis also found that 267,255 people notified the USPS that they moved outside the state of Georgia, which means they are no longer eligible to vote in the state, yet, 14,980 of those people allegedly voted in the 2020 election in Georgia, 100 percent of them illegally.

President Trump was leading in Georgia by more than 100,000 votes on election night. Then counting stopped as water main break was reported in Atlanta. To this day there is no evidence that the water main brake occurred. Next tens of thousands of ballots were counted that appeared after the election. These votes were nearly all for Joe Biden and the result was Joe Biden stealing the state.
Currently Biden leads President Trump by around 10,000 votes in Georgia. The above votes could very easily turn over Georgia for President Trump. For some reason, the politicians in Georgia are not willing to address these many corrupt issues in the election. This is an infringement on all Americans’ rights.

Not familiar with the source but writing like the bolded makes CNN positively impartial.

Wow... I was going to let it slide completely but its funny how the two 'responses' to good owls posts both attack the sources and say nothing about the content.

To the first one, unfamiliar with the comments or the person and haven't even listened to her statement, but she's on the record and testifying. It either happened or it didn't. If it did, it doesn't matter if she thinks all chinese people look alike.

To the second, the claim is either true or not. If its true then why WOULDN'T we see 50,000 votes that shouldn't have counted but somehow did as an infringement on all Americans rights?

I'd note that in arguments before the Supreme Court in iirc 2014, a Democratic Lawyer arguing that (again from memory) a Missouri?? state law requiring voter ID was suggested to impact about the same number of voters and was similarly an infringement on all Americans rights... even though they couldn't actually present one single person who wanted to vote and couldn't.

My point being that such language is common... and if the allegations are true, I would expect that you guys would actually agree that denying legal people the right to vote or accepting illegal votes was an infringement. I certainly do.

(12-03-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow... I was going to let it slide completely but its funny how the two 'responses' to good owls posts both attack the sources and say nothing about the content.

To the first one, unfamiliar with the comments or the person and haven't even listened to her statement, but she's on the record and testifying. It either happened or it didn't. If it did, it doesn't matter if she thinks all chinese people look alike.

To the second, the claim is either true or not. If its true then why WOULDN'T we see 50,000 votes that shouldn't have counted but somehow did as an infringement on all Americans rights?

I'd note that in arguments before the Supreme Court in iirc 2014, a Democratic Lawyer arguing that (again from memory) a Missouri?? state law requiring voter ID was suggested to impact about the same number of voters and was similarly an infringement on all Americans rights... even though they couldn't actually present one single person who wanted to vote and couldn't.

My point being that such language is common... and if the allegations are true, I would expect that you guys would actually agree that denying legal people the right to vote or accepting illegal votes was an infringement. I certainly do.

I didn't have time to watch the video. Just checked out the link and was less-than-impressed by the less-than-impartial nature of the writing. There is also quite a bit of "boy who cried wolf" regarding Guiliani and his witnesses/theories as they seem to be getting massively stiff-armed by the judiciary. If there is something real here I'm happy to consider it... agree that we all want the vote to be on the up and up.

(12-03-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow... I was going to let it slide completely but its funny how the two 'responses' to good owls posts both attack the sources and say nothing about the content.

To the first one, unfamiliar with the comments or the person and haven't even listened to her statement, but she's on the record and testifying. It either happened or it didn't. If it did, it doesn't matter if she thinks all chinese people look alike.

To the second, the claim is either true or not. If its true then why WOULDN'T we see 50,000 votes that shouldn't have counted but somehow did as an infringement on all Americans rights?

I'd note that in arguments before the Supreme Court in iirc 2014, a Democratic Lawyer arguing that (again from memory) a Missouri?? state law requiring voter ID was suggested to impact about the same number of voters and was similarly an infringement on all Americans rights... even though they couldn't actually present one single person who wanted to vote and couldn't.

My point being that such language is common... and if the allegations are true, I would expect that you guys would actually agree that denying legal people the right to vote or accepting illegal votes was an infringement. I certainly do.

It did happen.

Quote: Like, a lot of people think all Indians look alike. I think all Chinese look alike. So how would you tell? If some Chow shows up, you can be anybody and you can vote. And if somebody with my name — you can’t even tell my name — anybody can vote on my behalf. So ID should be the basic requirement.

Sorry that my response didn’t appease the fever dreams being promulgated by addressing them in a serious manner.

I mean, look at the post - what was I supposed to respond to exactly? GoodOwl did not stake a claim that could be responded to, besides the fact that she testified. If he wants to make an argument about what she said, as opposed to just praising her and insulting Dems, then he can.

(12-03-2020 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, look at the post -

Lets do just that.

Quote:what was I supposed to respond to exactly?

The thing I noted was this:

Quote:Here's Hima Kolanagireddy's full testimony if you're curious and didn't watch the Michigan hearings last night

Quote:GoodOwl did not stake a claim that could be responded to, besides the fact that she testified.

He actually invited people to look at the testimony --- and perhaps comment on the substance thereof.

Apparently you chose not to. Or you are not curious about anything that cuts against the notion of a lily white pure election process.

And apparently chose, instead, to attack her personally.

Nice shimmy two step to cover up your 'attack the messenger' response as opposed to anything substantive. <slow clap>. Not the first time you have done that mind you.

Quote:If he you wants to make an argument about what she said, as opposed to just praising her and insulting Dems her, then perhaps you should he can.

Heh.... FIFY. Interesting reflexive property to that statement there lad. [/size]

(12-03-2020 04:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, look at the post -

Lets do just that.

Quote:what was I supposed to respond to exactly?

The thing I noted was this:

Quote:Here's Hima Kolanagireddy's full testimony if you're curious and didn't watch the Michigan hearings last night

Quote:GoodOwl did not stake a claim that could be responded to, besides the fact that she testified.

He actually invited people to look at the testimony --- and perhaps comment on the substance thereof.

Apparently you chose not to. Or you are not curious about anything that cuts against the notion of a lily white pure election process.

And apparently chose, instead, to attack her personally.

Nice shimmy two step to cover up your 'attack the messenger' response as opposed to anything substantive. <slow clap>. Not the first time you have done that mind you.

Quote:If he you wants to make an argument about what she said, as opposed to just praising her and insulting Dems her, then perhaps you should he can.

Heh.... FIFY. Interesting reflexive property to that statement there lad. [/size]

I commented on her testimony after watching portions of it.
That is a personal attack?