Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
on the other hand--ok let's play your game, ustwo.
if the reports were to be confused with something not tendentious (you know, distorted by a partisan viewpoint so much that the factual content comes to be meaningless) what is your objection exactly?
to wit (quoting myself....ugh,)
btw: host has pretty effectively demolished the source.
the interpretations of the op piece were already taken apart by the good mister tuber above--i came in late to the thread and am only adding small things--the main arguments to be addressed here, really, are in host and ubertuber's posts...but we can play if you want. it'll get to the same thing.
|
Uber said he could see such a thing happening having been in that environment, so I dont' know what you are talking about there.
Let me quote him...
Quote:
|
SO, based on my experience working, knowing these sort of people, and going to multiple professional conferences, I could actually believe that there is a large grain of truth to this story. Of course, it's hard to know what's going on here since only one side is really talking about its perspective. It would help (but in another way, is sort of telling) if the university would elaborate on how they feel their program has been mischaracterized.
|
I don't think that supports anything host said, or you.
Additionally I rarely read hosts posts for what should be obvious reasons, and I think Cynthetic covered it nicely.
You avoided my question, so you didn't play my game at all.
Lets pretend the courses were in fact exactly what was laid out by the OP. Do you think the reaction against them was justified and that the university should review them?
The question here is not the source, but a pure hypothetical.