PDA

View Full Version : Anita Hill



Gerry Clinchy
10-20-2010, 09:49 AM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html?th&emc=th

20 years ago I wasn't paying much attention to politics, so don't remember the details of Hill's testimony; nor did I form an opinion on whether it was true or not.

However, why would Hill make this private message public? She could have just let it lay to see if there was another follow-up contact. The article says that she thought it might be a prankster. There was no threat implied (that I can see) in the message. Yet Hill thought it should be turned over to the FBI.



“I thought it was certainly inappropriate,” Ms. Hill said. “It came in at 7:30 a.m. on my office phone from somebody I didn’t know, and she is asking for an apology. It was not invited. There was no background for it.”

In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing.

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”


If Hill thought the message impugned her integrity, it was private, and would never have impacted her reputation had it remained private. Why did Hill feel compelled to play the tape for news media?

menmon
10-20-2010, 10:00 AM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html?th&emc=th

20 years ago I wasn't paying much attention to politics, so don't remember the details of Hill's testimony; nor did I form an opinion on whether it was true or not.

However, why would Hill make this private message public? She could have just let it lay to see if there was another follow-up contact. The article says that she thought it might be a prankster. There was no threat implied (that I can see) in the message. Yet Hill thought it should be turned over to the FBI.



If Hill thought the message impugned her integrity, it was private, and would never have impacted her reputation had it remained private. Why did Hill feel compelled to play the tape for news media?


The bigger question is why did the woman leave the message?

Gerry Clinchy
10-20-2010, 12:19 PM
The bigger question is why did the woman leave the message?

Did you read the article which quoted the message? The message seems self-explanatory.

If you are asking, did Mrs. Thomas plan on using an apology or explanation by Hill in some publicly beneficial way to Justice Thomas, then I can't answer that.

With no threat in the message, if Hill thought it could be a prankster, it would seem more logical to see if a follow-up to the message would occur before calling in the FBI.

dnf777
10-20-2010, 01:00 PM
I'd apologize.

"I'm sorry you married a pig.....Bee-otch!"

Not sure if that's what she's looking for. :D

road kill
10-20-2010, 01:03 PM
I'd apologize.

"I'm sorry you married a pig.....Bee-otch!"

Not sure if that's what she's looking for. :D

I believe you.:rolleyes:



RK

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 01:09 PM
It's interesting to wonder how Mrs. Thomas would have felt about a telephone message from Anita Hill suggesting, after all these years, that it would be a good thing if Justice Thomas would finally clear the air by apologizing for his inappropriate sexual harassment. In both cases, the messages could be considered inappropriate because they represent accusations that the other person committed perjury in testimony before Congress.

sandyg
10-20-2010, 01:35 PM
TLB that the two main libs on this forum immediately come to the defense of Anita Hill, just like they came to the defense of the rape accuser in the Duke Lacrosse team case of 2006. They refuse to let facts and common sense stand in their way.

TLB = typical liberal behavior

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 01:52 PM
TLB that the two main libs on this forum immediately come to the defense of Anita Hill, just like they came to the defense of the rape accuser in the Duke Lacrosse team case of 2006. They refuse to let facts and common sense stand in their way.

TLB = typical liberal behavior
Interesting observation. Where did either Dave or I come to the defense of the accuser in the Duke lacrosse team scandal (hint: I've already done the search)? Does that mean that comments such as yours, with no basis whatsoever in fact, should be labeled TCB - typical conservative behavior? BTW, did you even watch the hearings?

Gerry Clinchy
10-20-2010, 02:46 PM
It's interesting to wonder how Mrs. Thomas would have felt about a telephone message from Anita Hill suggesting, after all these years, that it would be a good thing if Justice Thomas would finally clear the air by apologizing for his inappropriate sexual harassment. In both cases, the messages could be considered inappropriate because they represent accusations that the other person committed perjury in testimony before Congress.

Offhand, I don't think that Mrs. Thomas would have called in the FBI and played the voice mail for the media.

Being a woman, and trying to assess another woman's reactions ... in the case of either phone call the recipient might be really dissed about the caller assuming their "guilt" in the matter. Why would Ms. Hill want to resurrect this old unpleasantness by bringing the media into it?

BonMallari
10-20-2010, 02:55 PM
You just have to believe that given the opportunity Mrs Thomas would like nothing better than to open a large can of whoop azz on Ms Hill...like most things today everyone has some sort of agenda, those two will be mortal enemies to their dying days..

sandyg
10-20-2010, 03:19 PM
Interesting observation. Where did either Dave or I come to the defense of the accuser in the Duke lacrosse team scandal (hint: I've already done the search)? Does that mean that comments such as yours, with no basis whatsoever in fact, should be labeled TCB - typical conservative behavior? BTW, did you even watch the hearings?

How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!

dnf777
10-20-2010, 03:25 PM
TLB that the two main libs on this forum immediately come to the defense of Anita Hill, just like they came to the defense of the rape accuser in the Duke Lacrosse team case of 2006. They refuse to let facts and common sense stand in their way.

TLB = typical liberal behavior

I hope you weren't referring to me.

If so, that's a big fat lie, or you just don't know what you're talking about. I commented that Nifong is the worst of the worst, and actually use him as a poster child for a corrupted judicial system that should not be entrusted with the death penalty.

I would like to see him serve consecutive sentences coincident with the sentences those boys would have served, if convicted. Not just disbarred.

Please tell me one of us was mistaken.

dnf777
10-20-2010, 03:29 PM
How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.


Get off my internet, you big dope!


First comment is a big fat lie. TCB. You bet? Sounds like you're starting to hedge a little. Perhaps a little too quick on the "send" button again?

Second comment.....its YOURS? Now do we add delusions of grandeur to the typical conservative mind-set?

LMAO.

Hey! Where do you have the right to say what you want? Show me where in the constitution is says anything about free speech?

Oh, sorry. I just had a republican senatorial candidate moment. :oops:

road kill
10-20-2010, 03:37 PM
How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!

Cause he knows everything.
Don't believe me??

Ask him!!:D



RK

sandyg
10-20-2010, 04:06 PM
I hope you weren't referring to me.

If so, that's a big fat lie, or you just don't know what you're talking about. I commented that Nifong is the worst of the worst, and actually use him as a poster child for a corrupted judicial system that should not be entrusted with the death penalty.

I would like to see him serve consecutive sentences coincident with the sentences those boys would have served, if convicted. Not just disbarred.

Please tell me one of us was mistaken.

I'm sure you thought Nifong was the worst of the worst, just not at the beginning of the controversy.

sandyg
10-20-2010, 04:18 PM
First comment is a big fat lie. TCB. You bet? Sounds like you're starting to hedge a little. Perhaps a little too quick on the "send" button again?

Second comment.....its YOURS? Now do we add delusions of grandeur to the typical conservative mind-set?

LMAO.

Hey! Where do you have the right to say what you want? Show me where in the constitution is says anything about free speech?

Oh, sorry. I just had a republican senatorial candidate moment. :oops:

O'Donnell was being facetious when she questioned where in the constitution mentions separation of church and state. Everyone knows (except libs) that the constitution doesn't mention separation between church and state.

From Wikipedia:

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)'s letter to the Danbury Baptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists) Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state's official church. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-0) The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court) first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

subroc
10-20-2010, 04:25 PM
I don't care about Anita Hill. The left wing radical extremists tried to "Bork" Thomas using Hill and failed. The lefts hate filled attacks on Thomas as well as Bork are and were unconscionable.

luvmylabs23139
10-20-2010, 04:30 PM
Honestly, calling the police and the FBI for that? She just lowered herself to the level of people who call the police because Burger King gave them the wrong food at the drive thru.

depittydawg
10-20-2010, 04:46 PM
I don't care about Anita Hill. The left wing radical extremists tried to "Bork" Thomas using Hill and failed. The lefts hate filled attacks on Thomas as well as Bork are and were unconscionable.

Virginia Thomas is extremely active politically, to the point of raising concerns of Judicial Ethics. The timing of her phone call in the heat of this election cycle smacks more to political manipulation than any sort of heart felt remorse or desire for reconciliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html?_r=1&ref=clarence_thomas

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1154ap_us_virginia_thomas_activism.html

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 05:05 PM
How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!
At the beginning of the Duke case I took no "position" because there was only a charge and a denial, without evidence of any investigation. As the investigation proceeded, it became increasingly clear that there was still no evidence. Eventually, it clearly turned into a witch hunt and I was happy to see the prosecutor disbarred and jailed (even if only for one day). If you search for my posts, you will find that. In fact, there were no posts about the incident at Duke until the case approached its end reflecting, I believe, a willingness to let the fact come out first.

With respect to my question concerning the hearings, I asked because I did and it was hard to come away feeling that either party was unsullied. The attitude that Thomas evidenced toward women was about as modern as his views on the Constitution. By today's standards his behavior would generally be viewed as condescending and inappropriate. Had he worked in the accounting firm where I worked at that time, he would have certainly been fired for his behavior. However, that does not necessarily translate to harassment. Hill's testimony seemed to fall into some of the same gray areas and none of her claims of sexual misconduct were ever substantiated. However, that does not mean that she was not mistreated.

I don't believe that Thomas should ever have been confirmed because he was and is a second or third rate constitutional scholar and jurist. He has fallen into a role of unequaled obscurity while putting forth radical re-interpretations of the law that run counter to almost everything the court had decided over the last 200 years.

sandyg
10-20-2010, 05:20 PM
At the beginning of the Duke case I took no "position" because there was only a charge and a denial, without evidence of any investigation. As the investigation proceeded, it became increasingly clear that there was still no evidence. Eventually, it clearly turned into a witch hunt and I was happy to see the prosecutor disbarred and jailed (even if only for one day). If you search for my posts, you will find that. In fact, there were no posts about the incident at Duke until the case approached its end reflecting, I believe, a willingness to let the fact come out first.

With respect to my question concerning the hearings, I asked because I did and it was hard to come away feeling that either party was unsullied. The attitude that Thomas evidenced toward women was about as modern as his views on the Constitution. By today's standards his behavior would generally be viewed as condescending and inappropriate. Had he worked in the accounting firm where I worked at that time, he would have certainly been fired for his behavior. However, that does not necessarily translate to harassment. Hill's testimony seemed to fall into some of the same gray areas and none of her claims of sexual misconduct were ever substantiated. However, that does not mean that she was not mistreated.

I don't believe that Thomas should ever have been confirmed because he was and is a second or third rate constitutional scholar and jurist. He has fallen into a role of unequaled obscurity while putting forth radical re-interpretations of the law that run counter to almost everything the court had decided over the last 200 years.

I'm sorry, all I read was "blah, blah, blah, I hate everything and everybody conservative but I'll use fancy language so that I don't come off as a dim-witted lib."

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm sorry, all I read was "blah, blah, blah, I hate everything and everybody conservative but I'll use fancy language so that I don't come off as a dim-witted lib."
Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes if you are having that much difficulty.:rolleyes:

Cody Covey
10-20-2010, 05:34 PM
I'm sorry, all I read was "blah, blah, blah, I hate everything and everybody conservative but I'll use fancy language so that I don't come off as a dim-witted lib."

I first off fail to see where he used any fancy language. Secondly you accuse him of taking a certain stance on something that happened like 4 years ago...aka way before you were around. And when he explains that in fact as a best case scenario you're only ignorant of the facts, you begin to call names and act like a child. If you take the time to read through other threads on this forum i have probably only agreed with Jeff maybe 3-4 times so you can't exactly call me his biggest fan but you are a child and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

road kill
10-20-2010, 06:32 PM
I'm sorry, all I read was "blah, blah, blah, I hate everything and everybody conservative but I'll use fancy language so that I don't come off as a dim-witted lib."

Excellent post, but it went over his head.



RK

sandyg
10-20-2010, 06:32 PM
I first off fail to see where he used any fancy language. Secondly you accuse him of taking a certain stance on something that happened like 4 years ago...aka way before you were around. And when he explains that in fact as a best case scenario you're only ignorant of the facts, you begin to call names and act like a child. If you take the time to read through other threads on this forum i have probably only agreed with Jeff maybe 3-4 times so you can't exactly call me his biggest fan but you are a child and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Calling names, acting like a child, no clue what I'm talking about?

Oh dear, you got me; I'm a closet lib.

Gerry Clinchy
10-20-2010, 06:45 PM
Virginia Thomas is extremely active politically, to the point of raising concerns of Judicial Ethics. The timing of her phone call in the heat of this election cycle smacks more to political manipulation than any sort of heart felt remorse or desire for reconciliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html?_r=1&ref=clarence_thomas

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1154ap_us_virginia_thomas_activism.html

Yes, I've read the articles about the inappropriateness of her political activity since she is the wife of a jurist. That can certainly be a valid concern, but really has nothing to do with this incident.

If Mrs. T ever imagined that Hill would play the tape for the media, then she isn't very politically savvy. If she didn't believe that Hill would go to the media, then you must suspect that Mrs. Thomas intended to do something political with any apology tendered by Hill. If anything, she would have been naive to think Hill would admit to wrongdoing.

The only thing left is that Mrs. Thomas cannot put the whole mess behind her, and it is an emotional thing for her. Still doesn't explain to me why Hill would choose the media route. It would appear that Hill also has trouble putting the incident behind her.

road kill
10-20-2010, 06:48 PM
Yes, I've read the articles about the inappropriateness of her political activity since she is the wife of a jurist. That can certainly be a valid concern, but really has nothing to do with this incident.

If Mrs. T ever imagined that Hill would play the tape for the media, then she isn't very politically savvy. If she didn't believe that Hill would go to the media, then you must suspect that Mrs. Thomas intended to do something political with any apology tendered by Hill. If anything, she would have been naive to think Hill would admit to wrongdoing.

The only thing left is that Mrs. Thomas cannot put the whole mess behind her, and it is an emotional thing for her. Still doesn't explain to me why Hill would choose the media route. It would appear that Hill also has trouble putting the incident behind her.


Because Hill is using page 2 of the liberal playbook, the "Victim" card!!:D


Nothing new........

RK

dnf777
10-20-2010, 07:48 PM
Calling names, acting like a child, no clue what I'm talking about?

Oh dear, you got me; I'm a closet lib.

No, you're just very impulsive and immature, and showing it.
You were completely wrong about anyone's stance on the Duke case.
Like Yardley, I also waited until the facts came out, however I have to admit, when I heard the case was based on testimony of a prostitute/dancer against a roomful of young men, and the DA was facing re-election, I had a gut feeling this was crap. Call me prejudiced. Better yet, don't call me.

road kill
10-20-2010, 07:54 PM
No, you're just very impulsive and immature, and showing it. You were completely wrong about anyone's stance on the Duke case.
Like Yardley, I also waited until the facts came out, however I have to admit, when I heard the case was based on testimony of a prostitute/dancer against a roomful of young men, and the DA was facing re-election, I had a gut feeling this was crap. Call me prejudiced. Better yet, don't call me.


That's pretty funny coming from someone who posted this;


I'd apologize.

"I'm sorry you married a pig.....Bee-otch!"

Not sure if that's what she's looking for.




ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!:D


RK

dnf777
10-20-2010, 08:40 PM
Glad I could make you laugh. That's what jokes are supposed to do.

Unlike your girl in the Delaware senate race, I was *trying* to be funny when people laughed!

I'm still laughing at big gibby's Clintonesque explanation of how he would have won a FT, and I don't think he was trying to be funny.

road kill
10-20-2010, 09:06 PM
Glad I could make you laugh. That's what jokes are supposed to do.

Unlike your girl in the Delaware senate race, I was *trying* to be funny when people laughed!

I'm still laughing at big gibby's Clintonesque explanation of how he would have won a FT, and I don't think he was trying to be funny.

Well, I think my dog has the talent to win a field trial and have been told that by some trialers that I have trained with.
But it's unlikely he ever will as his handler is his handicap.


He will however someday become a MH!!
But it will be all him and despite the handler.:rolleyes:




stan b

dnf777
10-20-2010, 10:13 PM
Well, I think my dog has the talent to win a field trial and have been told that by some trialers that I have trained with.
But it's unlikely he ever will as his handler is his handicap.

He will however someday become a MH!!
But it will be all him and despite the handler.:rolleyes:

stan b

I have no doubt, and look forward to seeing a picture of him surrounded by his MH qualifying ribbons! (and I'm NOT implying that I'd need to see photos ;))

I just got a kick out of that long-winded squirm that reminded me of vaguely of what "is" is. But this was what if "if" is...or something funny. Not sure if was more Clinton or Biden-like?

luvmylabs23139
10-20-2010, 10:23 PM
But it's unlikely he ever will as his handler is his handicap.


He will however someday become a MH!!
But it will be all him and despite the handler.:rolleyes:




stan b
Your dog isn't as owner handicaped as mine! At least he has an owner that will handle a dead duck unlike me.:rolleyes:
They get birds with Dad, but Dad hunts and doesn't play games.
Mom plays games and trains but doesn't do dead ducks.

YardleyLabs
10-20-2010, 10:30 PM
Your dog isn't as owner handicaped as mine! At least he has an owner that will handle a dead duck unlike me.:rolleyes:
They get birds with Dad, but Dad hunts and doesn't play games.
Mom plays games and trains but doesn't do dead ducks.
There are a lot of people who won't handle the birds without gloves. It's a simple solution. You can even where a pair of medical gloves underneath to eliminate any possibility of seepage.

luvmylabs23139
10-20-2010, 10:52 PM
There are a lot of people who won't handle the birds without gloves. It's a simple solution. You can even where a pair of medical gloves underneath to eliminate any possibility of seepage.

Nope! Not me! Getting rid of the cat's latest kill is about as far as I go with handling dead animals, and that's only so the dogs don't eat it.
I have no issues with handling live birds. I'll stick to putting the ob and rally titles on the dogs.
Don't even ask what happens around here when gun season opens for deer.
I'm great at terminating them but I won't go near it after I shoot it. I don't want to see it again until it is wrapped for the freezer!

david gibson
10-20-2010, 11:33 PM
Glad I could make you laugh. That's what jokes are supposed to do.

Unlike your girl in the Delaware senate race, I was *trying* to be funny when people laughed!

I'm still laughing at big gibby's Clintonesque explanation of how he would have won a FT, and I don't think he was trying to be funny.


because, sir, you are too ignorant to understand the post.

why is that so hard to understand? a MH test is pass/fail, but in that realm lets say 10 of 30 dogs pass. lets say 9 of those 10 that passed had a handle, and all 10 had 3 whistles on every blind and were equally tight. also - line manners and handler issues were also all equal. then, wouldnt the dog with no handles have had the best run? SO - IF it had been a FT - please tell me who would have won??

now, lets go to the other extreme. lets say of the 10 that passed, 9 had a handle, and all 9 had 4-9 whistles on the blinds but were in good control so they pass. but dog 10 had 1-2 whistles, very tight. now, all 10 get a ribbon and a pass equally - but IF were judged as a FT who would have won?

and i admit that we went out in the 2nd series the week before so i am only bragging on the event, not that the dog is perfect.,

and why am i asking dave ferraro who has never even trained a dog much less run a test or trial? my bad........pond scum tends to drag the best of us down regards

BonMallari
10-21-2010, 12:41 AM
and why am i asking dave ferraro who has never even trained a dog much less run a test or trial? my bad........pond scum tends to drag the best of us down regards

David: that's a very cheap shot and you know it. I haven't run a registered FT in some 25+ yrs, but I have trained a few dogs since then,so what ..when people start dragging out their resumes or call someone out based on what EE says about them it makes them look petty among other adjectives...don't stoop to that level...there's always someone around the corner with more wins, more titles and more accomplishments than the next guy ;-)

JDogger
10-21-2010, 02:20 AM
because, sir, you are too ignorant to understand the post.

why is that so hard to understand? a MH test is pass/fail, but in that realm lets say 10 of 30 dogs pass. lets say 9 of those 10 that passed had a handle, and all 10 had 3 whistles on every blind and were equally tight. also - line manners and handler issues were also all equal. then, wouldnt the dog with no handles have had the best run? SO - IF it had been a FT - please tell me who would have won??

now, lets go to the other extreme. lets say of the 10 that passed, 9 had a handle, and all 9 had 4-9 whistles on the blinds but were in good control so they pass. but dog 10 had 1-2 whistles, very tight. now, all 10 get a ribbon and a pass equally - but IF were judged as a FT who would have won?

and i admit that we went out in the 2nd series the week before so i am only bragging on the event, not that the dog is perfect.,

and why am i asking dave ferraro who has never even trained a dog much less run a test or trial? my bad........pond scum tends to drag the best of us down regards

How did we get here, from Anita Hill? Oh never mind, it's just Gibson playing the dozens....I just never realized his momma was....well, ya know....

dnf777
10-21-2010, 06:21 AM
because, sir, you are too ignorant to understand the post.

why is that so hard to understand? a MH test is pass/fail, but in that realm lets say 10 of 30 dogs pass. lets say 9 of those 10 that passed had a handle, and all 10 had 3 whistles on every blind and were equally tight. also - line manners and handler issues were also all equal. then, wouldnt the dog with no handles have had the best run? SO - IF it had been a FT - please tell me who would have won??

now, lets go to the other extreme. lets say of the 10 that passed, 9 had a handle, and all 9 had 4-9 whistles on the blinds but were in good control so they pass. but dog 10 had 1-2 whistles, very tight. now, all 10 get a ribbon and a pass equally - but IF were judged as a FT who would have won?

and i admit that we went out in the 2nd series the week before so i am only bragging on the event, not that the dog is perfect.,

and why am i asking dave ferraro who has never even trained a dog much less run a test or trial? my bad........pond scum tends to drag the best of us down regards

Very nice. Its YOUR way or the Highway, huh? Some of us actually use our dogs for what they were intended.......HUNTING. Wow, what a bizarre concept, worthy of being ridiculed and called "pond scum"!

I would NEVER attack a fellow RTFer for what they choose to do or not do with their dogs. At this phase of my life and career, I have chosen to pull the extra calls, and work the longer schedules to build my career and IRA. I have the utmost respect for people who find time to do it all. Between my family and job, I'm happy to tromp the woods for grouse with my dog for right now.

One thing I will not ever do, is make statements like "if" I played in the FT game, MY DOG would win! That is the weakest of the weak! (and before committing the time to compete at that level, I would secure gainful employment instead of living off others' work and wages) I take pictures too, but that doesn't support a household and hobby. :rolleyes:

RK: I hope you took my comment about your dog sincerely. Given our recent exchanges, I could understand you taking it in a sarcastic way. Ridiculing what people do with dogs is something only one very special person here will do....and it ain't me! Good luck to you and Elvis.

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 07:39 AM
You guys are ridiculous.

Why don't one or both of you let your behavior get out of hand and get banned so the childish bullshit can quit?

david gibson
10-21-2010, 07:43 AM
Very nice. Its YOUR way or the Highway, huh? Some of us actually use our dogs for what they were intended.......HUNTING. oh, my bad, i thought this forum had something vaguely to do with training wow - what a bizarre concept - have some involvement in training dogs in a dog training forum :rolleyes: ..... Wow, what a bizarre concept, worthy of being ridiculed and called "pond scum"! no, you are right, its not, you do plenty of other things in here worthy of that, just being here as a matter of fact :razz:

I would NEVER attack a fellow RTFer for what they choose to do or not do with their dogs. At this phase of my life and career, I have chosen to pull the extra calls, and work the longer schedules to build my career and IRA. I have the utmost respect for people who find time to do it all. Between my family and job, I'm happy to tromp the woods for grouse with my dog for right now.

One thing I will not ever do, is make statements like "if" I played in the FT game, MY DOG would win! That is the weakest of the weak! (and before committing the time to compete at that level, I would secure gainful employment instead of living off others' work and wages) I take pictures too, but that doesn't support a household and hobby. :rolleyes:

RK: I hope you took my comment about your dog sincerely. Given our recent exchanges, I could understand you taking it in a sarcastic way. Ridiculing what people do with dogs is something only one very special person here will do....and it ain't me! Good luck to you and Elvis.


there you go lying again. please show me where i said that.

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 07:48 AM
dnf, DG never said his dog would win a FT. Just that if that event was judged as one...nevermind. He has already explained it multiple times. I think you 'get it' (with a nod to JD) but you just want to stir the pot. Big surprise.

dnf777
10-21-2010, 09:34 AM
dnf, DG never said his dog would win a FT. Just that if that event was judged as one...nevermind. He has already explained it multiple times. I think you 'get it' (with a nod to JD) but you just want to stir the pot. Big surprise.

Okay, I admit, after *carefully* reading the comment, and sifting through the various ways it could be taken, I see what he was trying to brag about. Kind of like saying if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Got it.

But apparently from Post #41, gibby doesn't think it takes any training to hunt with a properly trained dog. News flash, people were training and hunting with dogs long before HTs and FTs of any brand. Like I said, I applaud anyone who had a good bond with their dog, trains and enjoys time together....whether its a 5x NFC trainer/handler, or a young boy teaching fido to sit. Guess some have a little higher standard of what's acceptable.

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 12:18 PM
Okay, I admit, after *carefully* reading the comment, and sifting through the various ways it could be taken, I see what he was trying to brag about. Kind of like saying if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Got it.



I think you were just reading it with you "I hate Gibson" colored glasses the first time. I didn't have any trouble understanding it...but what do I know...I'm a measly middle class peasant that didn't go to med school.

sandyg
10-21-2010, 01:40 PM
I think you were just reading it with you "I hate Gibson" colored glasses the first time. I didn't have any trouble understanding it...but what do I know...I'm a measly middle class peasant that didn't go to med school.

So it's not just me who thinks dnf777 is a self-righteous a$$hole?

Self-righteousness (also called sententiousness, holier-than-thou[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-righteousness#cite_note-0)) is a feeling of (usually) smug moral superiority[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-righteousness#cite_note-1) derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions,affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.
The term "self-righteous" is often considered derogatory (see, for example, journalist and essayist James Fallows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fallows)' description of self-righteousness (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/about_selfrighteousness_and_al.php) in regards to Nobel Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize) winners) particularly because self-righteous individuals are often thought to exhibit hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy), an idea similar to that of the Freudian defense mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) of reaction formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation). The connection between self-righteousness and hypocrisy predates Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)'s views, however, as evidenced by the 1899 book Good Mrs. Hypocrite: A Study in Self-Righteousness (http://books.google.com/books?id=EeIhAAAAMAAJ), by the pseudonymous author "Rita."

dnf777
10-21-2010, 02:37 PM
I think you were just reading it with you "I hate Gibson" colored glasses the first time. I didn't have any trouble understanding it...but what do I know...I'm a measly middle class peasant that didn't go to med school.

I don't know what the sam hill med school has to do with this??? I'm surprised you of all people would launch such a strike? Apparently I wasn't the only one to fail to properly interpret what he said, hence the evolution of this thread.

As for sandyg: what you think of me matters not. You have already falsely accused me and others, of taking stances on matters that were totally fabricated in your mind. Apparently your slanderous lies know no bounds when commenting on anyone who disagrees with your ideology. Hence, what you think of me doesn't matter a hill of beans. (and that's putting in nicely) In fact, being called an a$$hole by you probably makes me an allright guy!

Buzz
10-21-2010, 02:56 PM
because, sir, you are too ignorant to understand the post.

why is that so hard to understand? a MH test is pass/fail, but in that realm lets say 10 of 30 dogs pass. lets say 9 of those 10 that passed had a handle, and all 10 had 3 whistles on every blind and were equally tight. also - line manners and handler issues were also all equal. then, wouldnt the dog with no handles have had the best run? SO - IF it had been a FT - please tell me who would have won??

now, lets go to the other extreme. lets say of the 10 that passed, 9 had a handle, and all 9 had 4-9 whistles on the blinds but were in good control so they pass. but dog 10 had 1-2 whistles, very tight. now, all 10 get a ribbon and a pass equally - but IF were judged as a FT who would have won?

and i admit that we went out in the 2nd series the week before so i am only bragging on the event, not that the dog is perfect.,

and why am i asking dave ferraro who has never even trained a dog much less run a test or trial? my bad........pond scum tends to drag the best of us down regards


I've seen dogs in field trials without handles get dropped while dogs with handles got carried. A dog that hunts every square inch of a field to get a bird without a handle isn't necessarily better than a dog that runs to the fall area, sets up a tight hunt, misses the bird, then starts to hunt big & gets handled back to the bird by the handler.

The best way to find out how your dog would fair in field trials is to run some. Might be pleasantly surprised.

road kill
10-21-2010, 03:42 PM
I've seen dogs in field trials without handles get dropped while dogs with handles got carried. A dog that hunts every square inch of a field to get a bird without a handle isn't necessarily better than a dog that runs to the fall area, sets up a tight hunt, misses the bird, then starts to hunt big & gets handled back to the bird by the handler.

The best way to find out how your dog would fair in field trials is to run some. Might be pleasantly surprised.
I ran my pup in a derby.
He finished, but I was trashed.
It's hard enough competing against a standard, I am to much of an adrenaline junkie for head to head competition.

Just the way it is.
Maybe a shame, but Elvis and I are happy.
(well, I am anyways;-))


RK

Buzz
10-21-2010, 03:59 PM
I ran my pup in a derby.
He finished, but I was trashed.
It's hard enough competing against a standard, I am to much of an adrenaline junkie for head to head competition.

Just the way it is.
Maybe a shame, but Elvis and I are happy.
(well, I am anyways;-))


RK

Here's what I like doing with my dogs! ;-)

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2089687&id=1260900675&l=7dccd1df03

road kill
10-21-2010, 04:11 PM
Here's what I like doing with my dogs! ;-)

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2089687&id=1260900675&l=7dccd1df03

Buzz, did you read my WI duck thread?
My pup (not even 2 yet) picked up a triple as clean as you please.
Except he didn't sit to heel or any of that.
He delivered to hand, as soon as he gave me the bird he was gone for the next one.

The 3rd was a good 120 yards and swam another 50.
Elvis prevailed.:D


I wouldn't have it any other way!!

Same thing on the blind in 18" of water and 3' of marsh grass.
I handled him to a fall zone that I wasn't sure of, standing on a rat platform, got him down wind and he found the dead wood duck.
He found it with his nose, I couldn't even see him, I just heard him.

I guess he would have failed both tests.

Upland birds are our real passion!!!
He has a hell of a nose!!
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/Photo-0051.jpg




RK

Buzz
10-21-2010, 04:40 PM
Buzz, did you read my WI duck thread?
My pup (not even 2 yet) picked up a triple as clean as you please.
Except he didn't sit to heel or any of that.
He delivered to hand, as soon as he gave me the bird he was gone for the next one.

The 3rd was a good 120 yards and swam another 50.
Elvis prevailed.:D


I wouldn't have it any other way!!

Same thing on the blind in 18" of water and 3' of marsh grass.
I handled him to a fall zone that I wasn't sure of, standing on a rat platform, got him down wind and he found the dead wood duck.
He found it with his nose, I couldn't even see him, I just heard him.

I guess he would have failed both tests.

Upland birds are our real passion!!!
He has a hell of a nose!!
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/Photo-0051.jpg




RK

Didn't read the thread. Upland is my favorite too, but in SD what can you expect? I think the dogs have a lot more fun at it than waterfowl, but beware, I think it makes them a little wild! Just what we need... lol!

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 09:29 PM
I don't know what the sam hill med school has to do with this??? I'm surprised you of all people would launch such a strike?


I didn't launch any strike.:confused: I simply stated one reason why I may have not interpreted it the same way as you--obviously, you are more intelligent than I am, so maybe you read it correctly and I didn't.

dnf777
10-21-2010, 09:35 PM
I didn't launch any strike.:confused: I simply stated one reason why I may have not interpreted it the same way as you--obviously, you are more intelligent than I am, so maybe you read it correctly and I didn't.

I doubt that. More likely, I was just stirring the pot....as I suspect you are to a degree... ;-)

ducknwork
10-21-2010, 10:08 PM
you are more intelligent than I am,


I doubt that.

Did I just read that right?:cool:

Wrangler
10-21-2010, 10:14 PM
I support the Thomas family, but wish this would happen after the election!

sandyg
10-21-2010, 10:15 PM
I doubt that. More likely, I was just stirring the pot....as I suspect you are to a degree... ;-)

You could have stopped when you were ahead, but no...
That's not your style, is it.
It's not your fault, you're the victim here!
What a (insert favorite derogatory name here)!

david gibson
10-21-2010, 11:10 PM
You could have stopped when you were ahead, but no...
That's not your style, is it.
It's not your fault, you're the victim here!
What a (insert favorite derogatory name here)!

HEY!!! i know what you were thinking there!!!!

you meant "What a Gibson!

dont deny it! why i oughta.................................

dnf777
10-22-2010, 02:41 PM
You could have stopped when you were ahead, but no...
That's not your style, is it.
It's not your fault, you're the victim here!
What a (insert favorite derogatory name here)!

Dude,
Take a few wraps out.
Let Duck and I have a little fun.
I didn't take offense at his jabs,
And I don't think he did either.

Let it go.

ducknwork
10-22-2010, 03:24 PM
Dude,
Take a few wraps out.
Let Duck and I have a little fun.
I didn't take offense at his jabs,
And I don't think he did either.

Let it go.

There you go assuming again. I'm pissed and have been at the shrink's office all day.

dnf777
10-22-2010, 05:32 PM
There you go assuming again. I'm pissed and have been at the shrink's office all day.

Shrink? Try a Hank Jr disc and six pak of Shiner!
May not give you answers, but a whole lot cheaper and more fun!

ducknwork
10-22-2010, 08:35 PM
Shrink? Try a Hank Jr disc and six pak of Shiner!
May not give you answers, but a whole lot cheaper and more fun!

Insurance won't pay for Hank and booze.;)

BrianW
10-22-2010, 10:29 PM
Yardley, you may think Thomas shouldn't have been confirmed, but I believe he's twice the jurist Kagan will ever be.

depittydawg
10-22-2010, 11:10 PM
Yardley, you may think Thomas shouldn't have been confirmed, but I believe he's twice the jurist Kagan will ever be.

Although he may be better looking than she, he can't hold a candle to her knowledge to her knowledge of law. Thomas is a staunch conservative. He is nothing more than a politician with a robe. Law has little to do with his decisions. Seriously, politics aside, Thomas has to be about the worst jurist ever to sit on the bench. Certainly in my lifetime. And I"m no spring chicken...

Cody Covey
10-23-2010, 12:49 AM
Although he may be better looking than she, he can't hold a candle to her knowledge to her knowledge of law. Thomas is a staunch conservative. He is nothing more than a politician with a robe. Law has little to do with his decisions. Seriously, politics aside, Thomas has to be about the worst jurist ever to sit on the bench. Certainly in my lifetime. And I"m no spring chicken...

In your completely unbiased opinion?

david gibson
10-23-2010, 06:18 AM
Although he may be better looking than she, he can't hold a candle to her knowledge to her knowledge of law. Thomas is a staunch conservative. He is nothing more than a politician with a robe. Law has little to do with his decisions. Seriously, politics aside, Thomas has to be about the worst jurist ever to sit on the bench. Certainly in my lifetime. And I"m no spring chicken...

you are a racist!

BrianW
10-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Seriously, politics aside, Thomas has to be about the worst jurist ever to sit on the bench.
And why am I not surprised by that.
You've made it very clear over your posts that you favor an active federal government, into many areas of personal life, and Thomas is noted for being an "original intent of the Constitution" jurist & in favor of limiting federal power.

he can't hold a candle to her knowledge to her knowledge of law. . "Law has little to do with his decisions."Thomas also views the SCOTUS as interpreters of the law rather than making "social policy out of whole cloth" as many folks fear that Kagan (& Sotomayor) are going to try to do. He's also consistently supported a narrow interpretation of the "Commerce Clause" which Congress has used to stick it's nose into all kinds of areas that IT doesn't belong in.


He's a staunch conservativeGeorge Washington is often quoted as saying "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." If anything, Thomas holds a bucket of water for that fire, Kagan, imo, a bucket of gasoline.

Blackstone
10-23-2010, 01:44 PM
you are a racist!

:confused:

Blackstone
10-23-2010, 02:01 PM
I think it was totally inappropriate for Thomas’ wife to contact Anita Hill, especially 20 years after the fact. She was certainly not “extending an olive branch” by asking Hill to admit she lied on Thomas. I don’t know what he underlying motive was, but it wasn’t to mend fences.

I don’t know if I would have contacted the FBI had I been Hill, but I suspect it was a calculated move on her part. Hill is an attorney, and I’m sure she realizes if she ever needed to take action against Thomas’ wife for harassment or anything else, she would need proof . Now, she has proof that has been validated by the FBI.

Gerry Clinchy
10-23-2010, 07:27 PM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23thomas.html?th&emc=th

Isn't this kind of interesting ... another woman comes forth to discuss her extra-marital affair with Justice Thomas.

depittydawg
10-23-2010, 08:10 PM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23thomas.html?th&emc=th

Isn't this kind of interesting ... another woman comes forth to discuss her extra-marital affair with Justice Thomas.

Like I said. Thomas is like a politician in a robe. His sleazy lifestyle fits in better with Congress than it does on the court.

sandyg
10-23-2010, 09:36 PM
Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton's sleazy lifestyle? How about JFK's? How about Obama's cocaine use?

You celebrate homosexuality but frown on pornography?

You believe everything an ex-lover and ex-girlfriend says about their ex, not only Clarence Thomas' ex?

Where's the tolerance and understanding that you libs are known for? Oh wait, that's only for those that agree with you!

depittydawg
10-23-2010, 10:13 PM
Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton's sleazy lifestyle? How about JFK's? How about Obama's cocaine use?

You celebrate homosexuality but frown on pornography?

You believe everything an ex-lover and ex-girlfriend says about their ex, not only Clarence Thomas' ex?

Where's the tolerance and understanding that you libs are known for? Oh wait, that's only for those that agree with you!

I said Thomas' behavior mimics that of a politician more than a jurist. All the above named individuals are politicians. Thanks for proving my point. And by the way, where did you get your statement that I "celebrate" homosexuality.Lets stick to what is written. You don't need to make stuff up.