On 9/27/25 2:59 PM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 2:09 PM, jdeluise wrote:I'm not stooping.-a The justice department is part of the
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 1:30 PM, jdeluise wrote:Not true, you made no qualification and you wrote "etc".-a It
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 11:09 AM, TT wrote:Not happening now?-a Explain Lindsey Halligan.-a Pam
Sawfish kirjoitti 27.9.2025 klo 20.53:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/27/fbi-fires-agents- >>>>>>>>> kneeling-2020-racial-justice-protestThis is obviously very wrong. However, looking at those
damn
"agents" I can't but feel some satisfaction about this.
TT, since about the early mid 80s, and gaining momentum up
until the
present benighted and medieval administration, the US
military,
SS. FBI, etc., have had a strong element of politically
motivated
career-creation to it, the main beneficiaries of which are
women.
How about Europe?
Bondi. Alina
Habba.-a All deeply unqualified women put in position for
their
looks, politics, and loyalty.
You'll note I was specifically referring to military or
security or
police organizations.
Why are we now talking about civil service or cabinet? Does
it mean
that you agree with what I said about the organizations I
named, but
felt a pathological need to disagree with *something*?
could
easily extend to the justice department.-a And you know it.
So you're stooping to "etc.", is that it?
executive
branch and works closely with the FBI and SS at least.-a Why
*wouldn't* that be included in your list?
Well, shoot. We may as well include the Boy Scouts of America,
too...
This is rst, interesting dialogs begin when threads branch off
Probably worse, no?-a I'd argue the women who were put in
Nobody here is saying any of those people you name are any
good, at
all; nor is anyone saying the converse. That's an entirely
different
topic and I think you know it.
power
previously as part of gender quotas were at least likely
qualified
for the position.
Another topic, if you insist on going there.
-a I'm assuming you have a long list of women as unqualified
as these, that were put in place in previous administrations?
Separate topic. Start a thread if you want to go there, and
you won't
haved to pointed try to shift the topic under discussion.
into
separate but related concepts.-a I think you just don't like
"losing
control" of the thread,
Yes. It's becoming unfocused and unbounded, with either party
skittering away when they don't want to talk about any
particular
point.
To actually get anywhere with the topic at hand we need some
kind of
ethical ground rules, else it's just a bitching session that
skitters
from one topic to the next. Just serial bitching.
So I'm basically willing to go back and forth in disagreement on
a
topic, but I don't like interlocutors sashaying away when they
want to
dodge the topic by changing it to one of their choice.
I've never really liked that because nothing ever comes of
it. There
can seldom be a mutual understanding of the topic, or even the
motivations of the conversant. So it can lead to mistrust and
suspicion.
or of dissenting replies to your bitter
diatribes.-a It's a pattern any keen observer of rst would
notice.
imo, it *sounds* like you lost an opportunity to a woman you
Just pointing out your obvious biases.-a Got a problem with
What gives, j?
that?
I don't see the biases *for* anything, only against DEI
policies.
Where's the problem? Do you think DEI as a personnel policy is
generally a better policy, as compared to color-blind
meritocracy? New
thread for that one?
didn't
think was qualified and are still butt-hurt about it deep into
your
retirement.
Nah, all the DEI stuff was well after I was established in the
workforce, and in point of fact I was out of it before "woke"
was
anything other than what happened at the end of a short nap.
Leave it to you to always try for the most negative and
demeaning
possibility. That's for sure a recognizable pattern and we, you
and
me, have trodden this path before.
Personally, I'm all for judging people on their merits alone,
blind
to color and gender.-a I've never particularly liked DEI, but I
also
know I've had numerous well-qualified women and minority
colleagues
who might not had the opportunity otherwise.
Ditto.
Anti-DEI types like to pretend that it means "hire random
people off
the street based solely on gender, skin-tone and sexual
preference". In my experience that's not the case at all.
It has gravitated toward that increasingly, it appears to me,
and so
long as the underlying concept of DEI--to offer preferred
treatment to
groups who have historically been among the less financially
successful socio-economic segments of society whenever two
candidates
are deemed to be qualified--it is essentially anything anyone
wants it
to be as regards hiring and promotion.
A protective official policy that covers job discrimination if
it is
of the "right" sort.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 2:59 PM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 2:09 PM, jdeluise wrote:I'm not stooping.-a The justice department is part of the executive
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 1:30 PM, jdeluise wrote:Not true, you made no qualification and you wrote "etc".-a It could
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/27/25 11:09 AM, TT wrote:Not happening now?-a Explain Lindsey Halligan.-a Pam Bondi. Alina >>>>>>> Habba.-a All deeply unqualified women put in position for their
Sawfish kirjoitti 27.9.2025 klo 20.53:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/27/fbi-fires-agents- >>>>>>>>>> kneeling-2020-racial-justice-protestThis is obviously very wrong. However, looking at those damn >>>>>>>>> "agents" I can't but feel some satisfaction about this.
TT, since about the early mid 80s, and gaining momentum up until >>>>>>>> the
present benighted and medieval administration, the US military, >>>>>>>> SS. FBI, etc., have had a strong element of politically motivated >>>>>>>> career-creation to it, the main beneficiaries of which are women. >>>>>>>>
How about Europe?
looks, politics, and loyalty.
You'll note I was specifically referring to military or security or >>>>>> police organizations.
Why are we now talking about civil service or cabinet? Does it mean >>>>>> that you agree with what I said about the organizations I named, but >>>>>> felt a pathological need to disagree with *something*?
easily extend to the justice department.-a And you know it.
So you're stooping to "etc.", is that it?
branch and works closely with the FBI and SS at least.-a Why
*wouldn't* that be included in your list?
Well, shoot. We may as well include the Boy Scouts of America, too...
This is rst, interesting dialogs begin when threads branch off into
Probably worse, no?-a I'd argue the women who were put in power
Nobody here is saying any of those people you name are any good, at >>>>>> all; nor is anyone saying the converse. That's an entirely different >>>>>> topic and I think you know it.
previously as part of gender quotas were at least likely qualified
for the position.
Another topic, if you insist on going there.
-a I'm assuming you have a long list of women as unqualified
as these, that were put in place in previous administrations?
Separate topic. Start a thread if you want to go there, and you won't
haved to pointed try to shift the topic under discussion.
separate but related concepts.-a I think you just don't like "losing
control" of the thread,
Yes. It's becoming unfocused and unbounded, with either party
skittering away when they don't want to talk about any particular
point.
To actually get anywhere with the topic at hand we need some kind of
ethical ground rules, else it's just a bitching session that skitters
from one topic to the next. Just serial bitching.
So I'm basically willing to go back and forth in disagreement on a
topic, but I don't like interlocutors sashaying away when they want to
dodge the topic by changing it to one of their choice.
I've never really liked that because nothing ever comes of it. There
can seldom be a mutual understanding of the topic, or even the
motivations of the conversant.-a So it can lead to mistrust and
suspicion.
OK, well I thought it was on-topic enough.-a This seemed like more of an
ad hoc bitching thread anyway, why not add my own?
-aor of dissenting replies to your bitter
diatribes.-a It's a pattern any keen observer of rst would notice.
imo, it *sounds* like you lost an opportunity to a woman you didn't
Just pointing out your obvious biases.-a Got a problem with that?
What gives, j?
I don't see the biases *for* anything, only against DEI policies.
Where's the problem? Do you think DEI as a personnel policy is
generally a better policy, as compared to color-blind meritocracy? New >>>> thread for that one?
think was qualified and are still butt-hurt about it deep into your
retirement.
Nah, all the DEI stuff was well after I was established in the
workforce, and in point of fact I was out of it before "woke" was
anything other than what happened at the end of a short nap.
Leave it to you to always try for the most negative and demeaning
possibility. That's for sure a recognizable pattern and we, you and
me, have trodden this path before.
You're welcome :)
Personally, I'm all for judging people on their merits alone, blind
to color and gender.-a I've never particularly liked DEI, but I also
know I've had numerous well-qualified women and minority colleagues
who might not had the opportunity otherwise.
Ditto.
Anti-DEI types like to pretend that it means "hire random people off
the street based solely on gender, skin-tone and sexual
preference". In my experience that's not the case at all.
It has gravitated toward that increasingly, it appears to me, and so
long as the underlying concept of DEI--to offer preferred treatment to
groups who have historically been among the less financially
successful socio-economic segments of society whenever two candidates
are deemed to be qualified--it is essentially anything anyone wants it
to be as regards hiring and promotion.
A protective official policy that covers job discrimination if it is
of the "right" sort.
Well, that's your opinion anyway, and maybe you have some first hand experience that I don't.-a Or, maybe you're just parroting right wing talking points.-a I don't know.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:39:37 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,416 |
| Posted today: | 1 |