Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Nik]

You didn't make a statement, so I did ... which would have been a yes to the statement I made ... need it repeated again?

"I don't give a fuck what color their skin is, I would however prefer a well trained and capable fire chief over anyone who can't pass their test."

Oy. Dealing with you is like dealing with a mentally ill child. Ok, I'll take it real simple.

I am about to say the statement.

The point, quite simply, is that you don't need to know exactly how something works to know that it exists. Do you disagree with this statement?

I just said the statement. Do you disagree with the statement. Yes. Or. No.

God, how complicated can this be?

It doesn't have a yes or no answer ... if something exists it has to have an explanation, otherwise it is nothing but a dream. If it did exist you would be able to prove it. You are being dishonest and changing the topic as well as goal posts.

Really? So something only exists if you can prove it exists? You really want to champion that idea?

 

[WillowTree]

Does anyone have any actual evidence that the tests were racist? More importantly does New Haven have any evidence?

To my knowledge NO. Their evidence is based soley on the premise that the blacks "did not do well."

 

[KittenKoder]

Oy. Dealing with you is like dealing with a mentally ill child. Ok, I'll take it real simple.

I am about to say the statement.



I just said the statement. Do you disagree with the statement. Yes. Or. No.

God, how complicated can this be?

It doesn't have a yes or no answer ... if something exists it has to have an explanation, otherwise it is nothing but a dream. If it did exist you would be able to prove it. You are being dishonest and changing the topic as well as goal posts.

Really? So something only exists if you can prove it exists? You really want to champion that idea?

As I said, generalizing to be dishonest, in this type of case, yes there must be proof or it doesn't exist, period. I can show you a ton of racism in Indianapolis toward white folk all the time, but I can't prove it ....

 

[del]

Good thing, cause if you were gonna use that book you'd be going to an unaccredited school

the book's for you; you're mentioned in the title.

I'm in law school, thanks.

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

 

[Nik]

It doesn't have a yes or no answer ... if something exists it has to have an explanation, otherwise it is nothing but a dream. If it did exist you would be able to prove it. You are being dishonest and changing the topic as well as goal posts.

Really? So something only exists if you can prove it exists? You really want to champion that idea?

As I said, generalizing to be dishonest, in this type of case, yes there must be proof or it doesn't exist, period. I can show you a ton of racism in Indianapolis toward white folk all the time, but I can't prove it ....

Ahhh, so now you want to make the claim that these standards apply to this case, but not other cases. Please explain why not?

 

[KittenKoder]

Does anyone have any actual evidence that the tests were racist? More importantly does New Haven have any evidence?

To my knowledge NO. Their evidence is based soley on the premise that the blacks "did not do well."

Bingo ... there is no proof, not even a hint of evidence, just that all the black folk who took it failed so now they are whining about it. Before such tests were used they whined that the people were not impartial, so they come up with an impartial test and now they are whining about that.

 

[Nik]

the book's for you; you're mentioned in the title.

I'm in law school, thanks.

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

 

[KittenKoder]

Really? So something only exists if you can prove it exists? You really want to champion that idea?

As I said, generalizing to be dishonest, in this type of case, yes there must be proof or it doesn't exist, period. I can show you a ton of racism in Indianapolis toward white folk all the time, but I can't prove it ....

Ahhh, so now you want to make the claim that these standards apply to this case, but not other cases. Please explain why not?

You really enjoy being dishonest, but thanks for demonstrating it with each post. How is the test for advancement in a field where they have to be well trained or people die biased in any way?

 

[del]

I'm in law school, thanks.

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

project much?

 

[Nik]

As I said, generalizing to be dishonest, in this type of case, yes there must be proof or it doesn't exist, period. I can show you a ton of racism in Indianapolis toward white folk all the time, but I can't prove it ....

Ahhh, so now you want to make the claim that these standards apply to this case, but not other cases. Please explain why not?

You really enjoy being dishonest, but thanks for demonstrating it with each post. How is the test for advancement in a field where they have to be well trained or people die biased in any way?

I'm being dishonest?

You want to have a different standard for this and "general" cases. As if you can just make up rules that only apply to this case and not explain them. Sorry, but if you want to create standards out of your ass, you need to justify those standards.

You are incredibly simple minded. You don't realize that although I don't know HOW its biased, I can demonstrate evidence that it IS biased. Just as I don't know HOW a car works, I can demonstrate that it DOES work. Simple concept, really, what is the reason for your cognitive failure?

 

[Nik]

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

project much?

Nope. You?

 

[DiveCon]

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

project much?

he always projects

 

[DiveCon]

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

project much?

Nope. You?

liar

 

[Nik]

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

project much?

he always projects

Following me around again, poodle?

 

[Nik]

project much?

Nope. You?

liar

Incorrect. Try again?

 

[Harry Dresden]

This thread is starting to make me laugh. SCOTUS has ruled that the city must hire in such a manner that it's legal and all you all are patting yourselves on the back.

No, we're patting the court on the back silly.

Change my post as you will but it doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS is telling the city whom they may or may not promote.

no they are not....

 

[WillowTree]

I'm in law school, thanks.

good for you. i can't begin to tell you how impressed i am.

It is rather good for me. As for how impressed you are, thats ok. I don't seek validation from the internet, although it seems that you do.

*huggles*. Feel better Del?

"huggles" you are in law school and you say "huggles" oh shit!

 

[KittenKoder]

Ahhh, so now you want to make the claim that these standards apply to this case, but not other cases. Please explain why not?

You really enjoy being dishonest, but thanks for demonstrating it with each post. How is the test for advancement in a field where they have to be well trained or people die biased in any way?

I'm being dishonest?

You want to have a different standard for this and "general" cases. As if you can just make up rules that only apply to this case and not explain them. Sorry, but if you want to create standards out of your ass, you need to justify those standards.

You are incredibly simple minded. You don't realize that although I don't know HOW its biased, I can demonstrate evidence that it IS biased. Just as I don't know HOW a car works, I can demonstrate that it DOES work. Simple concept, really, what is the reason for your cognitive failure?

There's where you are being dishonest, I never said there were "general cases" ... each case is unique ... as I have always said and will always say, it depends on what you are talking about. You have not demonstrated bias from tests, and you cannot, all you can offer is some circumstantial evidence, and that is not evidence, it is actually worthless. Show proof or admit you are being dishonest in an attempt to paint the "white man" as evil.

 

[DiveCon]

project much?

he always projects

Following me around again, poodle?

thanks for proving me right once again
LOL

 

[Harry Dresden]

when i need a shyster, i hire one.

they're fairly abundant and for the most part reasonably priced like most commodities.
l

Good thing, cause if you were gonna use that book you'd be going to an unaccredited school

the book's for you; you're mentioned in the title.

i thought it sounded familiar...