(08-02-2023 03:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2023 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you overlook your own 'assume facts not evidence' grand statement. Which interestingly enough is in the sentence preceding,

Wow... you just really don't get it at all.

Opinions are just that... and I recognize them as such. I don't feel compelled to misrepresent facts in order to bolster mine.

Apparently I am an ignorant liar who doesnt understand English. That is your main go to so I will short circuit that here and now.

Quote:

Quote:See the above. Which particular magic 'other conversations' are you conjuring up here (again, with your own admonition in the your first quoted portion.

So are you just being argumentative? Or are you actually making a point?

If your point is that perhaps these other conversations didn't take place, you're right. In which case the fax really doesn't mean anything at all.... barring some sort of 'Jason Bourne' a fax arrives and you know you're supposed to kill someone, lol.

Who said that was the only conversation? The import of *that* one was the Lt Gov specifically identifying the person. When one pulls off the 'stupid hat', the contents give a clue that as to where the issue originated. Not dispositive, but a clue nonetheless.

Quote:'Fax came in from the Lt governor's office'.... You know what to do!! lol

Why do *you* think the Lt Gov office was specifically identifying her? But please keep fing ranting.

Quote:

Quote:I asked you... if you got a fax with a resume from the court and nothing else... no other communication, what would you do with that? If instead you got a call from them saying 'fire this person' and no fax, would that make you 'less' likely to do it because they didn't send their resume? I doubt it. That's all I said.

It is clear simply from the bio, that the office of the Lt Gov is singularly and specifically pointing someone out for some reason. Note the identifying as coming from the office of the Lt Gov.

Yep. Agree with this. Never said differently. The question I asked and you have yet to answer is 'barring any other instructions, what do you do with it??' [/quote]

Superfluous. The point is there is very little reason for any identification to be flowing in that direction, unless in conjunction with a request of some sort.

The issue isnt 'other communications' Ham. We dont have those. We *do* have the Lt Gov specifically identifying someone for some thing. Turns out that someone got fing reamed by the recipient of that bio. What I am suggesting is that communication doing the identifying tells us a lot.

Maybe not you, but to many.

Quote:You accuse me of suggesting 'magic conversations', and ignore that you're literally suggesting 'mind reading'. At SOME point there HAD to be a conversation where 'you know what to do' was articulated.

Amazing the follow up seems to be jsut that. You know, the suspended thingy. Maybe to make you go really fing spastic I should say the 'firing' thingy. You seem to want to rumble to the death over that generalization -- but you be you.

Quote:

Quote:Maybe the CoS thinks she is cute, and wants an introduction. Maybe the office wants to specifically invite her to a beer summit on the issue. Seems fairly obvious that, in order, the office of the Lt Gov identfied, the chancellor responded with the statement that she had been suspended, with a promises to look into further repercussions.

Yep, maybe. Unlikely though. So now comes the question though... was she suspended because the Lt Gov sent a fax and so the chancellor suspended her (or coerced someone else to do so), or was the Chancellor merely reflecting what the University (not a party to this fax) did on their own? That isn't clear from the article.

Maybe some analytical skills here.

Facts in time order ---
Step one: communication comes into the chancellor specifically identifying.
Step two: chancellor says (paraphrase so dont go Ham ballistic) 'yep, she is suspended. Going to go set about to terminate.'

The chancellor is confirming to the office who got / is going to get fked, and that she is going to get more fked.

In response to a communication specifically identifying the person to get fked.

And the wonderful question and point is --- why is the Lt Gov office doing this at all? There is no fing reason for them to specifically identify to the chancellor someone that they seemingly want to get fked.

The second issue is in 'what the person getting fked' said. It is apparently so incendiary that no one really knows what it is. I guess in Ham world something that (non) incendiary is sufficient to get not just the notice of the school, but the action of suspending her and moving to terminate all by their lonesome.

Got it. Sounds perfectly normal.

Most of the time such a comment that engenders that reaction is fairly known, and is typically incendiary enough to be notable. And is notable enough to be repeated.

Here? Crickets.

Does that sound like such an earth shattering issue to engender such actions without intervention by the Lt Gov.? Or by the chancellor?

Well -- apparently it is when Ham has to defend the action as his all encompassing example of reverse radical action by a right leaning institution. got it.

As I said, such information should be available somewhere... and I doubt that is an especially secure lock-step connection. That's precisely what i was speaking about. If the Chancellor called the University and the University suspended her because of that call, that MAY be coercion on the part of the Chancellor.... and if that happened, I would expect that someone who doesn't share their political leanings would speak up.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:All of my comments are that A&M (actually I think it was Sharp, but nobody official I see has refuted that) said that these communications were 'normal'.

I take it the office of the Lt Gov regularly sends them bios of people to pint out, and that the Chancellor regularly promises to suspend with promises to that office to make to fire or terminate.

What you dont see or acknowledge is that AM was forced to call them normal at the outset. There is no alternative but that.

You are literally making an argument in the absurd here....

Im not the idiot who buys into the self serving statement of 'normal' simply because the school said it. Thats you. i dont doubt the school said 'normal'. If you want to believe because they said it -- hey, free country and all that jazz.

The communications are far from normal. On their face. Literally, how many of those communications between the Lt Gov and the chancellor transpire every year? 50, 60? Maybe 100? Or is 'normal' closer to single digits? Maybe even one? There is no way the communications are normal, and to accept them as such is an incredible amount of naivete.

Quote:a) if that wasn't the truth, telling the truth would always be an option. People do it all the time. They're called whistle-blowers.... and as I said, I think the left, along with plenty of conservatives like me would side against Paxton and in favor of Sharp.

Yes you have already laid out your 'proof' of no whistleblowers before.

Quote:b) Sharp could have acknowledged that 'this case was different', but downplayed any accusation of coercion or pressure. No, it's not routine for them to do this, but for 'fill in the blank made up reason', we felt it appropriate.

c) they could have used the old 'we don't comment on open investigations' or some other deflection.

The goal in any issue of this is to shut the **** out of the press as quickly as possible. Neither of the above does that. If the office wants to play this hand really stupidly -- do b) or c).

Yes, they *could* have done the above. They *could* have blamed it on space aliens. The real only pragmatic way forward is to label the communications as 'ho hum, nothing here -- normal'.

I guess the context of only 'pragmatic' thing didnt resonate with you. But leave it to you to complain. Imagine that.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: That line was just as present in the articles I read as anything else presented here. You know.,.. ALL the facts.

Self-serving facts you mean, If you want to buy that the actions are normal -- have at it sparky,

And on cue, right back to your condescension.

Yep. I guess in Ham-world 'liar', and 'intentiaonally lying', and ignorant', and 'troll' dont fit that bill at all. especially when Ham is Ham splaining using them.


Based on the above with *your* very explicit and very recent comments about lying and ignorance and troll and 'dont understand English' -- cry me a fing river Ham. Lolz.

Quote:The fact is he said what he said.

Yes it is a fact. BFD. It is also a clearly self-serving fact. And to all but the densest, a not very true self-serving fact. Do *you* think the communication stream between the Lt Gov and the Chancellor 'normal'? Most would not.

In fact, I would hazard a guess that any communication regarding a target of suspension between a state school and the Lt Gov office would be highly irregular.

But glad you are all board with accepting at face value the characterization of that as normal. Got it.

Quote:

Quote:If they are normal, and if that set of communications is 'normal', then AM has some mfing worse problems than anyone can fathom.

Maybe so... but its still an absolute, incontrovertible fact that this is PRECISELY what he said.

Ose nose..... thats what he said. I dont think anyone controverts that (what he said precisely). But if thats the drum you want to beat to all hell, go for it.

My comment is that no -- the comment is not very accurate. But heavens to betsy, he said it. Got it. Next stupid as **** point you wish to point out for us?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Contrast that with you saying repeatedly 'she will be fired' when nobody ANYWHERE said that. I see you STILL don't want to talk about that.... other than to take exception to me speculating as to why.

Yes, huge difference you make an earth-fing shattering distinction on.

She was absolutely suspended with a promise to start a termination investigation. Make you feel better?

Well yes.... The difference is quite significant actually.

I guess Mr 'You better read context into my comments' doesnt see it the opposite way from which he requests, no -- demands -- from everyone else. At the expense of the other party being a 'troll', 'ignorant', 'intentionally lying', or seemingly cannot understand English when the opposite polarity. Imagine that. Fun fun fun.

Quote:How about simply 'she might be fired' as opposed to 'she will be fired'?? One letter extra.

Thats a good suggestion. Glad that was a main point of contention that wasted numerous paragraphs. Makes the world immeasurably better, the world must thank you for that. The horrors of my using the term 'fired' in a solo context, the sheer horror.....

Quote:

Quote:And for the record, I have denoted 'suspended' correctly more than a number of times previously. Imagine that in light of your bitching above. Good grief.

Wow... I honestly can't believe you're doing this.

I cant believe you are harping for countless pages on 'that is what he precisely said' as opposed to looking at the content of the comment, and the other countless pages harping on the crucial distinction of firing/termination/suspension. Good for you, awesme display of Ham-splaining there. Bravo.

Quote:So why bother with this ---

Quote:

Quote:Second... I still don't see any evidence of Patrick doing much of anything.

This seems like a 'chain of command' sort of thing

Yes, you go out of your way to isolate the Lt Gov from the fracas, but also go out of your way to not d that for the office of the Lt Gov.

I guess your comment about the Lt Gov is mere surplusage to the issue. Got it now.

Based on the articles I've read... nobody said Patrick did anything at all. I even went so far as to hedge that by saying 'much of anything'... but I don't recall one single word about what he personally did.

Nobody said he called anyone. Nobody said he even responded to Sharp. Nobody said he was even aware of the situation. We know that his office was and it seems highly likely that he was at least aware of it, but nobody at any point claims that he said or did anything.

That's what I said... and I stand by it as 100% FACTUALLY accurate. Not my opinion (other than the 'it seems highly likely line) but absolute fact. If you have conflicting facts, feel free to present them.... but the reason i said what i said is because it is the facts.

Good for you. A nice war and peace statement that is mere surplussage. Awesome. I already said that above.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:yet you continue to insist that I said something that you can't actually quote me saying... and if you inferred it, I have denied intending to imply it.... and then get upset when I draw a conclusion from that, though you don't deny nor correct it. Odd.

From your attempt to isolate the Lt Gov himself, quoted above. Odd.

That's your inference... it is not my implication... I implied nothing. I stated a fact.

A surplussage, yes, we understand, Any other random surplussages for us?

Quote:

Quote:NOWHERE do I see that he said 'she will be fired'... yet you have repeatedly made that clam. If its not ignorance or a lie, you tell me what it is. It sure as hell isn't the truth.

And I stated 'suspended' as well repeatedly. Pretty fing laughable coming from the bird that *demands* that everything he writes be in delineated in *his* context, even when not clear about it.

So even now you won't admit that you said exactly what i said you did... exactly what I said was a lie... and you turn it into an attack on me for not mentioning something that makes no difference to the lie. [/quote]

No, Im stating you are a hypocritical ass, who demands everyone read 'context' into his misstatements, then, without batting an eyelid, goes down the path of being an exacting prick. Oh, and when anything prickles him, he Ham splains about 'understanding English', and 'intentionally lying', and being 'ignorant'.

Claro? You have done it with me, you have done it with lad, and done it with 93. Kind of a fing pattern for you.

The simple fact is that the Lt Govs office apparently intervening doesnt fit your blather about a school initiating the stuff on on their own very well.

And you, for whatever reason, feel the need to defend your thesis to the death.

But by god you are going to win that fight on whether the generalization of being fired is correct or not -- to the tune of about 900 words in your epic opus.

And now your current bugaboo is that some dude *said* 'normal', when the discussion is really whether ir really is 'normal'. You have only put about 700 words into that tangent, so you might want to give it some more attention.

Have fun.

For clarification:


The issue started several hours earlier when Buckingham [land commisioner, mom] called Patrick to alert him that an A&M professor had made negative comments about him during a guest lecture at UTMB.


Buckingham also called Jenny Jones, the university system’s vice chancellor for governmental relations.

Apparently in response Patrick then called Sharp. The call between Sharp and Patrick was short.

Patrick’s chief of staff, Darrell Davila, then *followed* with the text to Sharp that linked to Alonzo’s faculty page.

That was followed shortly by the suspension.

And a response to the Lt Gov office looking at procedures to terminate. 'Shud happen in two weeks.'

And an immediate censure at that point. Literally less than two hours after the incident,

Yeah, all instigated by ATM it appears. Every bit of it is ATM reactionary move.

Nothing from the outside pols, Lolz. All exemplary of a reactionary school per Hams thesis.

Amazing that ATM was able to instigate Buckingham to complain -- complain to 3 people nonetheless, up and down and across the university systems. Amazing that ATM was able to instigate Patrick to call personally --- as detailed by the Texas Tribune. Amazing that ATM was able to instigate the Lt Govs chief of staff to follow up with a link to a specific bio to complain about.

That is quite the reach for a university system chancellor. Iim impressed. Im impressed that a chancellor had it in so far for a lecturer to put that into motion. Because, Ham's position is that AtM might have instigated it all. Pretty impressive to do with that timeline.

Pretty uncomplicated with that full timeline. To me, kind of obvious what happened with that timeline above. As opposed to the intricate conspiracy that Ham posits I am denoting.

That timeline kind of outlines it all. If one wants to clamor how it could be AM instigating this and a perfect example of right wing activism by a school, well --- its a free country and one is more than able to make that statement. But the timeline and sequence of actions makes that a very tortured tale to make stick.

Yet apparently that timeline above makes the sequence that I think most likely happened a massive, intricate conspiracy. Even though the timeline and series of know actions fits to it like a decent glove.

Cest le vie.

----------------------

As for the normality of the communications -- here is the exact wording of the ATM statement: "“It is not unusual to respond to any state official who has concerns about anything occurring at the Texas A&M System,”

Anyone with basic English skills can parse that. Even those without, like me. Or lad. Maybe even liars, like me. Or lad. maybe even ignoramuses, like me. Or trolls, like lad, or 93.

It says it is not unusual 'to respond' to a state official 'who has concerns about [the] Texas AM System'. Yep, I agree with that.

Correct. The issue addressed in that statement isnt whether it is unusual to respond to *this* request. That is *this* request to wreak havoc on some poor schmoe who said something that torqued Patrick off. Enough to call the fing AM chancellor about it.

The amazingly such terrible statement by the lecturer that, interestingly, no one knows that the fk it was, it was so horrible.

So please keep up your song and dance about it being normal. That is because the AM system said it was normal. A basic parsing of that statement does not say that, and one can recognize the not so subtle generalization of the statement. A generalization that makes it pretty much a useless statement, albeit a truthful one. That request coming in is in no effing way normal.

And to be explicit, you are dead wrong about the statement being called 'normal' by the university system. If I wanted to be an exacting prick I would dance around that for four pages, since the word 'normal' doesnt appear anywhere in the actual AM statement as has been heralded about these pages. Maybe I could complain that someone was lying because they said an abject and provable untruth.

But, I am not going to pull a 'that isnt exactly precisely the exact precise same word' move on that for that issue, as seems to be the rage these days Amongst others of the same ilk.

(08-02-2023 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For clarification:


The issue started several hours earlier when Buckingham [land commisioner, mom] called Patrick to alert him that an A&M professor had made negative comments about him during a guest lecture at UTMB.

Almost every single thing in this post of yours is 'new' and not included in the original post that we were discussing. I absolutely said that there were conversations and that this information would be somewhere. I absolutely said that I would be happy to learn of 'new' facts. SOME of them i even guessed myself... like the call from mom to Patrick or his office.

Example... I said:

Please show me your proof that this call took place. I'm not denying it... I just haven't seen it. The reason I don't 'respond' is because nothing I have read (and now that is at least six articles) talks about Patrick doing much of anything.

I ALSO said:

So again... perspectives. You are convinced/looking at it from the standpoint that he probably did this... or at least that is your concern that he did.... and while I don't disagree that this would be wrong, I've already said that it is wrong... and I am looking at it from the perspective currently supported by the evidence that I have...

You bitched about this as well.

Both statements were 100% factual and accurate... and still are... in context and time. I did not deny it... It just wasn't in evidence at the time. Now more than a week later, you apparently have it. And note that you were chastising me for not 'responding' to your conjecture...

But you'd prefer to play this game.... fine...

Quote:And to be explicit, you are dead wrong about the statement being called 'normal' by the university system. If I wanted to be an exacting prick I would dance around that for four pages, since the word 'normal' doesnt appear anywhere in the actual AM statement as has been heralded about these pages. Maybe I could complain that someone was lying because they said an abject and provable untruth.

I think you pretty obviously ARE being an exacting prick, since you used two paragraphs to talk about what you, being an exacting prick, would do.... so let's look at that,.

I am not making the pedantic correction you are... where 'specific words' are the issue... I am talking about the obvious differences in what those words mean.... something you do as well when it suits you. As I said; you can certainly believe that her firing was likely... but that is what you infer from what they said, and not what they said. I don't infer that from what they said... and since YOU like to gloat when things ultimately work out the way we think they might... I'd note that she WASN'T fired... so you too were 'dead wrong'.

Here is what was in YOUR link... which is the same one I read elsewhere... emphasis mine...

Quote:In a statement, Texas A&M University System spokesperson Laylan Copelin said Sharp’s text to Patrick was a “typical update,” saying it is not unusual for the chancellor to “keep elected officials informed when something at Texas A&M might interest them.”

“It is not unusual to respond to any state official who has concerns about anything occurring at the Texas A&M System,” said Copelin, who said the system followed standard procedure to look into the claim.

Note the words... 'typical update' 'not unusual' 'the system followed standard procedure'. The word normal fits. You didn't say anything about this because you agreed.... so you're clearly just arguing to argue. As to what I did, I think we ALL know the difference between 'she will be fired' and 'pending investigation re: firing her'... and despite your protests, it IS (IMO) an insult to the English language for you to act like these comparisons are the same thing.

So again, not a pedantic or exacting correction at all... but one where the words don't essentially mean the same thing. As I said, if you had suspended someone pending an investigation re: firing them and they had filed for unemployment, I am 100% confident that you would agree that the words don't mean the same thing.... ESPECIALLY since the investigation took place and they didn't fire her. Obviously the words don't mean the same thing. Whereas regarding MY comment, you have specifically said (paraphrasing because I don't want to search for it) that A&M had no choice but to characterize the conversation as normal... so you agreed- that they had characterized them that way.... and that my use of the word was appropriate.

Had Sharp actually said what you claim, there would BE no room for disagreement.

(08-03-2023 09:36 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2023 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For clarification:


The issue started several hours earlier when Buckingham [land commisioner, mom] called Patrick to alert him that an A&M professor had made negative comments about him during a guest lecture at UTMB.

Almost every single thing in this post of yours is 'new' and not included in the original post that we were discussing. I absolutely said that there were conversations and that this information would be somewhere. I absolutely said that I would be happy to learn of 'new' facts. SOME of them i even guessed myself... like the call from mom to Patrick or his office.

Example... I said:

Please show me your proof that this call took place. I'm not denying it... I just haven't seen it. The reason I don't 'respond' is because nothing I have read (and now that is at least six articles) talks about Patrick doing much of anything.

I ALSO said:

So again... perspectives. You are convinced/looking at it from the standpoint that he probably did this... or at least that is your concern that he did.... and while I don't disagree that this would be wrong, I've already said that it is wrong... and I am looking at it from the perspective currently supported by the evidence that I have...

You bitched about this as well.

Both statements were 100% factual and accurate... and still are... in context and time. I did not deny it... It just wasn't in evidence at the time. Now more than a week later, you apparently have it. And note that you were chastising me for not 'responding' to your conjecture...

But you'd prefer to play this game.... fine...

Quote:And to be explicit, you are dead wrong about the statement being called 'normal' by the university system. If I wanted to be an exacting prick I would dance around that for four pages, since the word 'normal' doesnt appear anywhere in the actual AM statement as has been heralded about these pages. Maybe I could complain that someone was lying because they said an abject and provable untruth.

I think you pretty obviously ARE being an exacting prick, since you used two paragraphs to talk about what you, being an exacting prick, would do.... so let's look at that,.

I am not making the pedantic correction you are... where 'specific words' are the issue... I am talking about the obvious differences in what those words mean.... something you do as well when it suits you. As I said; you can certainly believe that her firing was likely... but that is what you infer from what they said, and not what they said. I don't infer that from what they said... and since YOU like to gloat when things ultimately work out the way we think they might... I'd note that she WASN'T fired... so you too were 'dead wrong'.

Here is what was in YOUR link... which is the same one I read elsewhere... emphasis mine...

Quote:In a statement, Texas A&M University System spokesperson Laylan Copelin said Sharp’s text to Patrick was a “typical update,” saying it is not unusual for the chancellor to “keep elected officials informed when something at Texas A&M might interest them.”

“It is not unusual to respond to any state official who has concerns about anything occurring at the Texas A&M System,” said Copelin, who said the system followed standard procedure to look into the claim.

Note the words... 'typical update' 'not unusual' 'the system followed standard procedure'. The word normal fits. You didn't say anything about this because you agreed.... so you're clearly just arguing to argue. As to what I did, I think we ALL know the difference between 'she will be fired' and 'pending investigation re: firing her'... and despite your protests, it IS (IMO) an insult to the English language for you to act like these comparisons are the same thing.

So again, not a pedantic or exacting correction at all... but one where the words don't essentially mean the same thing. As I said, if you had suspended someone pending an investigation re: firing them and they had filed for unemployment, I am 100% confident that you would agree that the words don't mean the same thing.... ESPECIALLY since the investigation took place and they didn't fire her. Obviously the words don't mean the same thing. Whereas regarding MY comment, you have specifically said (paraphrasing because I don't want to search for it) that A&M had no choice but to characterize the conversation as normal... so you agreed- that they had characterized them that way.... and that my use of the word was appropriate.

Had Sharp actually said what you claim, there would BE no room for disagreement.

Regarding not reading about this call - the article below was published on July 25 and updated on the 26th. It's the article referenced in the original tweet posted here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/...n-patrick/

That article is what Tanq was essentially quoting, and it was the source of this entire thread.

(08-03-2023 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2023 09:36 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-02-2023 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For clarification:


The issue started several hours earlier when Buckingham [land commisioner, mom] called Patrick to alert him that an A&M professor had made negative comments about him during a guest lecture at UTMB.

Almost every single thing in this post of yours is 'new' and not included in the original post that we were discussing. I absolutely said that there were conversations and that this information would be somewhere. I absolutely said that I would be happy to learn of 'new' facts. SOME of them i even guessed myself... like the call from mom to Patrick or his office.

Example... I said:

Please show me your proof that this call took place. I'm not denying it... I just haven't seen it. The reason I don't 'respond' is because nothing I have read (and now that is at least six articles) talks about Patrick doing much of anything.

I ALSO said:

So again... perspectives. You are convinced/looking at it from the standpoint that he probably did this... or at least that is your concern that he did.... and while I don't disagree that this would be wrong, I've already said that it is wrong... and I am looking at it from the perspective currently supported by the evidence that I have...

You bitched about this as well.

Both statements were 100% factual and accurate... and still are... in context and time. I did not deny it... It just wasn't in evidence at the time. Now more than a week later, you apparently have it. And note that you were chastising me for not 'responding' to your conjecture...

But you'd prefer to play this game.... fine...

Quote:And to be explicit, you are dead wrong about the statement being called 'normal' by the university system. If I wanted to be an exacting prick I would dance around that for four pages, since the word 'normal' doesnt appear anywhere in the actual AM statement as has been heralded about these pages. Maybe I could complain that someone was lying because they said an abject and provable untruth.

I think you pretty obviously ARE being an exacting prick, since you used two paragraphs to talk about what you, being an exacting prick, would do.... so let's look at that,.

I am not making the pedantic correction you are... where 'specific words' are the issue... I am talking about the obvious differences in what those words mean.... something you do as well when it suits you. As I said; you can certainly believe that her firing was likely... but that is what you infer from what they said, and not what they said. I don't infer that from what they said... and since YOU like to gloat when things ultimately work out the way we think they might... I'd note that she WASN'T fired... so you too were 'dead wrong'.

Here is what was in YOUR link... which is the same one I read elsewhere... emphasis mine...

Quote:In a statement, Texas A&M University System spokesperson Laylan Copelin said Sharp’s text to Patrick was a “typical update,” saying it is not unusual for the chancellor to “keep elected officials informed when something at Texas A&M might interest them.”

“It is not unusual to respond to any state official who has concerns about anything occurring at the Texas A&M System,” said Copelin, who said the system followed standard procedure to look into the claim.

Note the words... 'typical update' 'not unusual' 'the system followed standard procedure'. The word normal fits. You didn't say anything about this because you agreed.... so you're clearly just arguing to argue. As to what I did, I think we ALL know the difference between 'she will be fired' and 'pending investigation re: firing her'... and despite your protests, it IS (IMO) an insult to the English language for you to act like these comparisons are the same thing.

So again, not a pedantic or exacting correction at all... but one where the words don't essentially mean the same thing. As I said, if you had suspended someone pending an investigation re: firing them and they had filed for unemployment, I am 100% confident that you would agree that the words don't mean the same thing.... ESPECIALLY since the investigation took place and they didn't fire her. Obviously the words don't mean the same thing. Whereas regarding MY comment, you have specifically said (paraphrasing because I don't want to search for it) that A&M had no choice but to characterize the conversation as normal... so you agreed- that they had characterized them that way.... and that my use of the word was appropriate.

Had Sharp actually said what you claim, there would BE no room for disagreement.

Regarding not reading about this call - the article below was published on July 25 and updated on the 26th. It's the article referenced in the original tweet posted here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/...n-patrick/

That article is what Tanq was essentially quoting, and it was the source of this entire thread.

Interestingly turns out I know the attorney that filed the FOIA re: Sharp and the Lt Gov office on behalf of the Tribune. That is the new background in that article. Apparently Ham is upset about that update. I guess Ham didnt read the Trib stuff and relied on the vaunted 6 other newspapers. I assume Ham does not know the reputation the Tribune has re: its focus pretty much exclusively on Texas state policies, Texas state politics, and Texas state government.

Had lunch with him yesterday and got some background.

aTm got tossed around the political ring like a scrawny ass showbiz wrestler going against Randy Coteur.

And yes, the entire thing was instigated through the Lt Gov office. Kudos to the Tribune for the depth, and for expending their resources on this, and things like this.

I've always been impressed by the Trib and their attention to state politics. Probably the only paper in Texas that has that emphasis.

They seen to be the only game in town (i.e. in the state) that has actually plumbed the deeper facts. They were the only ones to spring for their lawyer to FOIA Sharp's office, and the LtGovs office.

I see Ham is still dancing his dance over the AM statement.

It is a great statement, gravitas enough to allow one to think that it addresses this issue head on, but only a generalized statement that, when actually analyzed makes zero comment about *this* issue.

And yes, Ham, I think the issue of 'normal' vs what the statement says *is* a bull**** difference. Im demonstrating with that the same dancing on pinhead garbage that that *you* used to label Lad deficient in English or a liar, and myself elsewhere as ignorant or a liar.

And if you want to pull that style with 'firing' vs 'suspended', then your statement is as much a problem as that. Funny that. And your statement fits in precisely of the other statements of 'a falsehood' that you sling so capriciously about.

Your statement of the communication being 'normal' is the same level of 'abject falshehood' that you pop hither and yonder like confetti being shot into the sky at a Times Square New Years eve event.

I see that you are irate at that tack. Imagine that.

Thanks for noting the date on the article, lad. And the update. Both were well before my link of the 31st. Seemingly Ham didnt fing bother to look at it in depth, or maybe not even at all. But yet we still got a in depth analysis of everything without him ever bothering to consider a source material. Fun fun fun.

(08-03-2023 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding not reading about this call - the article below was published on July 25 and updated on the 26th. It's the article referenced in the original tweet posted here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/...n-patrick/

That article is what Tanq was essentially quoting, and it was the source of this entire thread.

I'm not certain what you're talking about here, but I'm sure it was my fault due to the back and forth and re/mis-directions...

The 'new' information (specifically what i quoted above) includes things that I didn't read elsewhere... and he didn't previously quote... like the FACT that the mom called Patrick's office... which I said at the time I think we all assumed, but it was not established in the original articles I read, nor in his quotes until yesterday/today... almost a week after the event.... I didn't say nobody said it, I said I hadn't seen it and asked him to post it. Even if it was buried in one of a few articles that I skimmed vs the few that I fully read, it is pretty weak sauce for someone to respond to such clear willingness to become informed by sending a link saying 'read for yourself', especially as part of what must now be thousands of other words. A simple copy paste would have sufficed... and he obviously had no trouble doing that

but it STILL doesn't make any difference to whether this was coercion or 'alignment'. (I'm just using that term for simplicity) . I think I said... even if ALL those things happened just exactly as he has described, what he quoted in Sharp's text response STILL doesn't say what he claims it says.... and all of this other information absolutely provides information, but I STILL don't see irrefutable PROOF beyond contestation (which is the way Tanq has propped it) of :

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
co·er·cion
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement"

I even note that the Oxford definition places 'by agreement' as being the essential counter to coercion.

Did they do it because they were forced to by the LtG, or because they were in agreement?

Again, feel free to provide me with PROOF of that force or threat... I do not claim that I cannot be wrong.... but the 'implied by the office' threat (which nobody said, but I mam inferring from the context) really only works if the entities are on opposite sides... like if Nancy Pelosi were to post an article negative of Biden, you might think she were coerced... but if she posted one positive of him, even if she learned about it from him directly, there was no threat. She probably did it because they are in agreement.

(08-03-2023 01:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-03-2023 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding not reading about this call - the article below was published on July 25 and updated on the 26th. It's the article referenced in the original tweet posted here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/...n-patrick/

That article is what Tanq was essentially quoting, and it was the source of this entire thread.

I'm not certain what you're talking about here, but I'm sure it was my fault due to the back and forth and re/mis-directions...

The 'new' information (specifically what i quoted above) includes things that I didn't read elsewhere... and he didn't previously quote... like the FACT that the mom called Patrick's office... which I said at the time I think we all assumed, but it was not established in the original articles I read, nor in his quotes until yesterday/today... almost a week after the event.... I didn't say nobody said it, I said I hadn't seen it and asked him to post it. Even if it was buried in one of a few articles that I skimmed vs the few that I fully read, it is pretty weak sauce for someone to respond to such clear willingness to become informed by sending a link saying 'read for yourself', especially as part of what must now be thousands of other words. A simple copy paste would have sufficed... and he obviously had no trouble doing that

but it STILL doesn't make any difference to whether this was coercion or 'alignment'. (I'm just using that term for simplicity) . I think I said... even if ALL those things happened just exactly as he has described, what he quoted in Sharp's text response STILL doesn't say what he claims it says.... and all of this other information absolutely provides information, but I STILL don't see irrefutable PROOF beyond contestation (which is the way Tanq has propped it) of :

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
co·er·cion
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement"

I even note that the Oxford definition places 'by agreement' as being the essential counter to coercion.

Did they do it because they were forced to by the LtG, or because they were in agreement?

Again, feel free to provide me with PROOF of that force or threat... I do not claim that I cannot be wrong.... but the 'implied by the office' threat (which nobody said, but I mam inferring from the context) really only works if the entities are on opposite sides... like if Nancy Pelosi were to post an article negative of Biden, you might think she were coerced... but if she posted one positive of him, even if she learned about it from him directly, there was no threat. She probably did it because they are in agreement.

The swiftness of ATM's message back to DP's people (paraphrasing here "She's already suspended and and a review/possible firing will be completed soon") tells me that ATM was acting more out of a feeling of being coerced rather than being "in agreement". There was no time to get the facts straight in that short time span for ATM to get the information reviewed so that they could decide if they were in agreement or not.

What nobody has really metioned yet is just how s***** UTMB acted based on the Tribune reporting.

So Alonzo seems to have done more in terms of preventing opioid deaths in Texas than perhaps anybody else and for that she should be given a massive dose of respect. UTMB asks her to give their first-year med students a lecture on this incredibly important topic (one that she has given at UTMB before to apparent rave reviews). There is NOTHING in any reporting to suggest that she said anything obviously out-of-bounds and yet UTMB immediately puts out a statement of censure against Alonzo when they hear that Buckingham and DP were pouting about the lecture.

That. Is. Chickenshit. Honestly.

The next professor who is asked to give a guest lecture at UTMB should tell them to f*** off.

*edit* I wonder what residency programs in Texas would think about the medical student at UTMB who called Mommy about the mean lecture? Would this have a cooling effect on the programs who may be considering her for a position? Perhaps they would worry about saying something wrong on rounds and end up with their chairperson getting an angry phone call from Dan Patrick's office?

(08-03-2023 03:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The swiftness of ATM's message back to DP's people (paraphrasing here "She's already suspended and and a review/possible firing will be completed soon") tells me that ATM was acting more out of a feeling of being coerced rather than being "in agreement". There was no time to get the facts straight in that short time span for ATM to get the information reviewed so that they could decide if they were in agreement or not.

Why? Getting the facts straight is the whole idea behind the inquiry... which was slated to take a few days.... and although suspended, it WAS 'with pay' I read. Besides... I'm not suggesting 'in agreement' that she should be fired for what she said... merely 'in agreement' that talking bad about the sitting Lt Gov or blaming the Lt Gov rather than Border Patrol/The Feds, Homeland Security over Opiods in the state (which appears to be the gist of it) is potentially a bad thing and depending on what was said COULD result in being fired.

Again, not saying you have to agree... especially not on the probability... just saying that its not near 100% certainty.

(08-03-2023 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What nobody has really metioned yet is just how s***** UTMB acted based on the Tribune reporting.

So Alonzo seems to have done more in terms of preventing opioid deaths in Texas than perhaps anybody else and for that she should be given a massive dose of respect. UTMB asks her to give their first-year med students a lecture on this incredibly important topic (one that she has given at UTMB before to apparent rave reviews). There is NOTHING in any reporting to suggest that she said anything obviously out-of-bounds and yet UTMB immediately puts out a statement of censure against Alonzo when they hear that Buckingham and DP were pouting about the lecture.

That. Is. Chickenshit. Honestly.

The next professor who is asked to give a guest lecture at UTMB should tell them to f*** off.

*edit* I wonder what residency programs in Texas would think about the medical student at UTMB who called Mommy about the mean lecture? Would this have a cooling effect on the programs who may be considering her for a position? Perhaps they would worry about saying something wrong on rounds and end up with their chairperson getting an angry phone call from Dan Patrick's office?

While yes. I didn't make a big deal out of it (by the time I noticed it, we were already WAY down another road) assuming nothing of any meaning was really said, I would generally agree... and youre right that it might bite the girl in the butt... That said, UTMB apparently felt obliged to distance themselves from it and otherwise not offer any comment... so maybe it was just petty political crap.... and I can see where UTMB might think that such comments are inappropriate in that setting, regardless of which direction they flow or how (relatively) benign they might be.

If the girl blew it way out of proportion to her mom (nobody has said what was really said... and she wouldn't be the first politically active person to do so...) and this was reported to Patrick, only to be corrected later (during the investigation) then while we can say he should have been above it, what if what was reported (but didn't happen) was legally (meaningful) slander?

I would think (but don't know) that of ALL groups, UTMB would be most likely the ones to know early on what was actually said in one of their classes.... or maybe they just took one person's word for it and rebuked them. That's possible... I just similarly don't put that at anything near a 100% certainty.

I DO though greatly appreciate that all of this has been presented as your opinion... as I think/hope I have.... supported by the facts, but not without possibility of being wrong.

(08-03-2023 01:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-03-2023 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding not reading about this call - the article below was published on July 25 and updated on the 26th. It's the article referenced in the original tweet posted here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/...n-patrick/

That article is what Tanq was essentially quoting, and it was the source of this entire thread.

I'm not certain what you're talking about here, but I'm sure it was my fault due to the back and forth and re/mis-directions...

The 'new' information (specifically what i quoted above) includes things that I didn't read elsewhere... and he didn't previously quote... like the FACT that the mom called Patrick's office... which I said at the time I think we all assumed, but it was not established in the original articles I read, nor in his quotes until yesterday/today... almost a week after the event.... I didn't say nobody said it, I said I hadn't seen it and asked him to post it. Even if it was buried in one of a few articles that I skimmed vs the few that I fully read, it is pretty weak sauce for someone to respond to such clear willingness to become informed by sending a link saying 'read for yourself', especially as part of what must now be thousands of other words. A simple copy paste would have sufficed... and he obviously had no trouble doing that

but it STILL doesn't make any difference to whether this was coercion or 'alignment'. (I'm just using that term for simplicity) . I think I said... even if ALL those things happened just exactly as he has described, what he quoted in Sharp's text response STILL doesn't say what he claims it says.... and all of this other information absolutely provides information, but I STILL don't see irrefutable PROOF beyond contestation (which is the way Tanq has propped it) of :

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
co·er·cion
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"our problem cannot be solved by any form of coercion but only by agreement"

I even note that the Oxford definition places 'by agreement' as being the essential counter to coercion.

Did they do it because they were forced to by the LtG, or because they were in agreement?

Again, feel free to provide me with PROOF of that force or threat... I do not claim that I cannot be wrong.... but the 'implied by the office' threat (which nobody said, but I mam inferring from the context) really only works if the entities are on opposite sides... like if Nancy Pelosi were to post an article negative of Biden, you might think she were coerced... but if she posted one positive of him, even if she learned about it from him directly, there was no threat. She probably did it because they are in agreement.

Got it. Its *my* fault *you* didnt bother to read the link. The link provided more than a bit ago, and on top of it the link *you* poohed poohed since it didnt agreee with the six (or whatever number it was that read). And a link to probably the best resource on news regarding Texas state government. Wonderful. Just wonderful.

Lolz. You cant make this up.....

(08-03-2023 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  *edit* I wonder what residency programs in Texas would think about the medical student at UTMB who called Mommy about the mean lecture? Would this have a cooling effect on the programs who may be considering her for a position? Perhaps they would worry about saying something wrong on rounds and end up with their chairperson getting an angry phone call from Dan Patrick's office?

But, you have to remember there is *no* coercion present when you get a 'have you seen this' phone call *from* Dan Patrick himself......

Nor any messaging *at all* when it is followed up in minutes by a link to a bio from the CoS of the office of the Lt Gov. No message at all in there of what you should do.

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Lolz.

Still lying I see... You're apparently not getting enough attention. Hope this helps.

(08-03-2023 04:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lolz. You cant make this up.....

Apparently you actually CAN, lol

(08-03-2023 05:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Still lying I see... You're apparently not getting enough attention. Hope this helps.

(08-03-2023 04:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lolz. You cant make this up.....

Apparently you actually CAN, lol

I guess you are blind to your own deflection in the post. Got it.

You *chose* not to bother with the piece. You *chose* to belittle the piece ('one of 6' or something like that...)

Now you say apparently everyone must spoon feed Ham everything. Because Ham cant say 'gee, I didnt take the fing time to read it'.

Wonderful. Just wonderful. Lolz.

I am sorry I didnt post it within 30 secs for you. I have been on the road.

My advice is simply stop flapping your lips over items you dont know.

In the Kyra, you went down a sideshow tear when *you* didnt read the issue I talked of. Then got torqued when I said your deep analysis wasnt the subject at hand, and then proceeded to literally call me a liar and ignorant when the root fing cause was that *you* didnt read the stuff. Apparently that is the same type of (in)action here. Imagine that.

Here you are blowing words that has as its base stuff available that *you* didnt read. Yet he made a comment specifically about in a pooh pooh manner. At the end -- *you* didnt bother to even look at i.

And now you proceed to spend about 200 words deflecting to *my* supposed actions. Absolutely rich. Lucky you didnt deflect this much in your fb career.

Ham -- put your fing big boy pants on and just say 'I didnt bother to read the stuff that I am gumming about, and now complain about it being new.'

Or -- just deflect like you did just earlier today. And as you did in the Kyra previously. It really *doesnt* hurt to say 'well I just didnt read it. My bad.'


Jimminy Kricket this is funny.

Tanq...

This is really getting sad. I'll try one last time and then be done with it.

What I said at the time was 100% true. Nothing I had read at the time suggested that Patrick personally had done much of anything.... but I also said that anything done by his office/on his behalf was his responsibility. Further I said that it was wrong... so what do you want me to do?? You've made a big deal about me saying that I missed a few details that were present in your article but not in the others, but I had assumed those details anyway.... and **** me that I would assume that if you're earnestly trying to show me something and you quote from an article, that the part you're quoting would be demonstrative in response... 100%, my fault for that assumption.

But all of this is a completely (other than to posture and argue) meaningless side show to what we are talking about.... which is collusion vs agreement. Lad has stuck to this as I think I also mostly have in responses to him. I initially said alignment, but the definition I quoted uses agreement... so I'm using that word. It means what I intended to imply by alignment.

I have been consistent in those comments, and while certainly you've gone to a lot of effort to try and belittle and diminish me personally (as have I) you've done almost nothing to demonstrate with FACTS that Patrick and Sharp are not at least of similar minds/mostly on the same team. Perhaps if you are aware of some 'beef' between them? Perhaps if you are aware of some previous threats? I'm not... and my requests for information were in earnest.... I've really been away from Texas Politics for a while. Yes, I think it incumbent upon you to show me what you know if you expect to change my mind... and not upon me to just randomly stumble upon such facts. Nothing in these articles suggests that they are not generally aligned... and I even mentioned a few things that to me suggest otherwise.

Coercion by definition implies a threat of force.... and 'getting a call from the boss' can certainly imply force, but it can also imply agreement. Just because he's the boss doesn't mean you can't agree on lots of things... that's often how you rise in power yourself. We've agreed that He/his office should have stayed out of it... What I'm looking for is evidence that these things wouldn't have happened without that happening. That's why I have stuck so hard to your 'she will be fired' comment. It seems obvious to me that if I were threatening someone to fire her 'or else' (the threat) that their response to me would be as clear as you have stated it. 'She will be fired' and not 'we're doing an investigation regarding firing her'. The former is the quid for the quo (or vice versa) and the latter is more of a 'we shall see' response.

If the suggestion from there is that what Patrick really asked him to do was suspend her with pay and look into her comments to see if that warranted firing (precisely what happened and consistent with Sharp's text) then I am right back where I started... where it was wrong for Patrick to be involved in this in any way, but that I would expect ANY entity to investigate charges of impropriety... even if they turn out to be a hoax... you then go after the hoaxer as 93 suggested... and while suspension sounds bad, we still don't know what she said... but we DO know that UTMB went to the effort of distancing themselves from association with it... without further comment.

I don't know what it takes for a prof who apparently has time to speak off campus to get suspended with pay for a few days in July (it doesn't sound like a big deal in terms of her missing lecture time with her students)... nor do I know how big a deal it is for them to have such a suspension on their record.... but as I said... I do know that I did the same thing to one of my staff for something alleged by a co-worker who was being fired and I still had to suspend her and investigate what was likely a complete lie. Suspending people based on allegations isn't that big a deal in my mind... as long as the allegation is unfounded.... which this apparently was.

I absolutely have deflected from parts of this conversation that I don't think matter... just as you have... just as anyone would... If you think they matter, you can certainly make that point. I still don't know why it mattes that Patrick actually made the call.... and your comments about it being 'official communication' and 'from the COS' seemed to agree with that. It actually seems to support my earlier contention that whatever was said in what you called a 'magic' phone call was more important to the question of coercion than the fax. The details at the bottom of the article (probably written in the update) don't change the inferences at the top (likely the original article and exactly what the others I read said) They merely clarify them