The one thing that we can both agree on is that women should expect to be able to achieve anything they decide to put their minds to.

The fact that there is a small margin of difference when you measure enough millions of people does not change that fact. The fact that there is a smaller number of women in top science and mathematics positions does not change that fact either.

If that's where your interests lie, go for it, ladies. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. And be proud when you reach those goals, because you'll have beaten incredible odds to get there and that makes the achievement far more impressive than a man who made it to the same place.

__________________

In science, we do not accept claims just because someone finds them "so patently obvious" (so is the Earth's flatness). We look for evidence. Where is your evidence?
And telling us to "go Google it" is not good enough. Go Google it yourself, and then report back to us what you found. Just for a start.

Yes, it's a laughable idea.

Drunk Vegan, before you post more nonsense, I suggest you research Franz Boas' studies on the physical changes of immigrant descendants in the U.S. This is very old data, early 20th century!

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

It sounds like you don't know what "nurture" means. Let's give you a pass and call it a typo.
I guess I missed where you rationalized the data in the OP study to fit your preconceived notions. Did you even read it? Read it again, and look at Disinfo Agent's latest link, and open your mind to the truth so you can stop being insulting and condescending to the intelligence of women. They might appreciate it.

Speaking of college presidents behaving stupidly:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app.../NEWS/80828006

That got him resigned. The interesting thing is at the very end of the story, the guy was *indicted* back in 2002 for giving false grades to athletes. That didn't get him resigned. But this did.

-Richard

What a clown that guy was-- obviously he has no business being anywhere near higher education. He obviously lied in many ways about that incident, and I'm still left to wonder if anyone on that boat was a student at that school (I suspect they were, making it all the more outrageous). But my conclusion here is, it's a good thing there is such a thing as a "PC police"-- in the form of the media outcry. Without that, I'd say it's perfectly clear this guy would still be faking records and lying about his personal behavior, just as it's clear the entrenched "old boy" network in the college trustees (as if that label were appropriate) would be all too ready to whitewash his activities. I guess that truth doesn't quite gibe with the convenient "thought police" rationalization we encountered above, though I don't doubt injustices can come from any quarter.

See... KenG, pardon my bluntness, but it's commentary made in ignorance like this that resulted in his resignation.

Yeah, sitting on the boat with students and beer was a bad idea.

But I'll tell you something- When I was at HHB 3-82 1CD, my 1st Sergeant threw a Keg Party for the Battery.

Was he inept and had no business in command?

Some folks get In With The crowd to reach them.

We, outside and ignorant as to what, exactly, were the circumstances of that photograph can judge and make a lot of guesses- that may have nothing to do with what really happened. You may have cast your judgment based on personal opinion and perceptions, but not necessarily on facts.

I think you need to get your facts straight before you claim I reach my conclusions "from ignorance". Did you read the article? Consider:

1) Photographic evidence proves he was not just "sitting on the boat" (why did you choose those words in obvious contradiction of the photo? Ask yourself why you are so ready to alter the facts to give this guy a whitewash. I'm certainly curious of why.). Do you see anything he is doing that would constitute a worse offense than sitting?

2) He claims, with a straight face, the beer keg he was holding over the young woman's mouth was "not working". I guess they were just posing for an incriminating photo, maybe? Are you kidding me?

3) If any of those girls were students at his school, his behavior would likely constitute sexual harassment. If a guy at a frat tries to get you drunk, that's bad enough, but when it's the president of your school...

4) If any of those girls were under-age, he might have committed a felony. Of course, that would be nothing new for him-- as he was indicted for felony falsification of records, but received a whitewash from local law enforcement and his own school.

5) His 19 year-old son was arrested for drunk driving the next morning, suggesting that the excesses of the dad are spilling over from just serious questions about his responsibility as a school official into serious questions about his responsibility as a father.

But yeah, I see your point, I'm just jumping to conclusions and probably it's all a big misunderstanding, just like it was for those falsified grades. Or not.

I'm afraid I don't see the logical basis of the analogy, the role of the military is not to advance the enlightenment of our youth. Perhaps you are unaware of the extreme problem that both binge drinking and sexual harassment create in our colleges, and how that dimension is very much behind the seriousness of that college president's indiscretions.
Yeah, it was all a big misunderstanding, I'm sure. Those girls really are 21, and the keg really was broken, and he was holding it just as a joke for the photograph, and when he originally denied any knowledge of the incident he really had just forgotten about it. Is this your position here?

If you still support the veracity of Paxton's argument, consider this quote, from http://deadspin.com/5041670/this-man...ini+keg-sales:
The plot thickens. Why would she hold a keg that didn't work, and why would he need to put it back down? Maybe he really is a staunch enemy of underage drinking who just happened to get caught in a compromised position by a mistake of circumstance-- or maybe he's a complete liar. I don't think it's a close call, but of course if I were in a court of law I'd want a number of other questions answered. I suspect I won't have that opportunity here, so must work with the data at hand. What I still find surprising is, why did you feel the need to alter that data to support your own rationalization of the situation?

No, KenG, that is exactly what I already advised you to do...
Getting deja vu of reading a MoOn Hoax thread now...
I have altered zero facts. Now you are just making things up and accusing me of whitewashing.
To the contrary- I am reminding you that you are the one making strong allegations based on your perceptions.
Ever do a kegstand? I helped many soldiers do them back in the army. Good thing I wasn't caught holding a guy over a keg huh?
What a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad person I was.
Fortunately, no one took a picture causing me to resign from my duties as a soldier.
All of this is irrelevant to your statement that implies clearly that he is inept, incompetent or otherwise totally unfit for his work.
I do not know and you do not know.
No beer is shown flowing in that picture. So it could be the truth.
I don't know and you still don't know. But that is not stopping you from reacting and making allegations of TOTAL incompetence.
Drinking with several people is sexual harassment now?
Remind me of that next time I go to a ball...
I really need to stop sexually harassing my plumbing buddies then huh?
Can you imagine?! I handed another plumber a beer at my house a few months ago! ( I wasn't drinking- but still they were...)
It's a good thing no one took a picture!People might think I'm gay.
If?
Prove that they were underage first. I'm not talking about "ifs" here.
Next- Since you are wanting to suddenly go by what the article says- the article said that it was other administration involved, however, Paxton opted to take full responsibility for their actions in order to save their jobs.
This is irrelevant as to the photograph in question. His sons later behavior does not mean that the two events are actually related.

My position is that you are making quick judgments based on your perceptions of that event.
You made a statement that he "was a clown that had no business in higher education" based ONLY on one photograph about which you know very little.

I am not defending nor whitewashing Paxtons actions.

I am clarifying to you, KenG, the fallacies in your claims and advising that you think about them.

You jumped to conclusions and made a broad sweeping ad hom statement against a stranger based on one photograph about which you have very little information.
This is the kind of behavior that resulted in that photograph being the big deal that it became- leading to his resignation.

But if that was a WOMAN instead of a MAN in the picture, these perceptions might be very, very different!

You added an ETA to that last post- so I'll address it here:
First: Prove that Any UnderAge Drinking Occured.

Otherwise- Drop That Claim.

Next: Prove his intentions- Otherwise, admit that you are drawing conclusions.

This is perfectly possible.
Given my current knowledge of the situation, it's more likely that he's lying than it is that he's telling the truth. Because he already denied the photo. When he was shown the photo, he then tried explaining it.
However, this is not grounds for anyone to be allowed to jump to conclusions either.
he may have forgotten the photo and once reminded, explained it honestly.
You do not know. I do not know.

but you jumped to conclusions based on perceptions and then made strong allegations- Which is what the actual issue is that I'm addressing Now.
I never altered any data.
Actually- You have.
You claimed that underage drinking occurred. Without any evidence whatsoever that it had.
You have made strong allegations about the character and the career and the competence of the man who is a stranger to you.

I repeat- I have altered no information nor have I defended Paxton.

I have pointed out your blatant errors- bluntly- to you.

It is now your own personal responsibility to think about it and make choices on your own about your own rationalization, allegations, altering of information and your fallacies.

Neverfly,

There's some things I did when I was in the 18 - 25 range of which I thank God there are not pictures. I went on a cruise once in that range and it's a wonder I'm still alive.

However, that's very different than the standard of conduct for a president of a college (any official at a college, for that matter). This kind of frat boy/girls gone wild behavior goes on all the time. We expect the officials to be adults that reign that in, not encourage and participate in it.

If I'm on the board of trustees/regents/whatever, that photo alone is enough for me to give him the boot and have to make a stop at the local emergency room to get that boot surgically removed from his rectum.

And that's just for the photo behavior. He ought to be in jail for the grade falsification.

Considering that, were I on the board of trustees, I'd trying to identify everyone in that photo, verify their ages, and get an independent account from each of just what went on that day.

As far as thought police go, this isn't that, but a justified matter for the normal police, the grade falsification thing for certain. If that girl were a student, were her grades perhaps going to be inflated in exchange for something? Given his history, that's a question that the board of trustees and the local authorities should be inquiring about. Maybe they have and there's nothing there. But given that he got off from an indictment, I don't know. I'm sure the local press may be looking into that angle as well.

I am not going to tolerate presidents of colleges pouring beer down the throats of students.

-Richard

I understand and agree that a College President had no business getting caught in a questionable situation and have repeatedly pointed out that I am not defending the College Presidents behavior.
What I am saying is that we should be rational and realistic and not jump to conclusions- to do otherwise would be just as irresponsible as what the allegations against Paxton accuse him of being.

In this case Neverfly I would have to say that despite Ken G's equivocations and your corrections of his factual erors, the decision to force this man's resignation was not a kneejerk PC reflex.

It is unwise to fraternize with students whom you are going to be evaluating later, under any circumstances (do you give special privledges to the students you do party with?)

But to do so on a boat, with a keg of beer, and to * take photographs * of said event, is the stupidest move I can imagine. Add to this his prior indictment for grade falsification and it's not difficult to see why they were forced to let him go due to the implications of the new fiasco - no matter how correct or incorrect those assumptions may have been.

There are many cases of injustice in the name of reactionary political correctness, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread - but this case is simply not one of them.

__________________

LOL I have to agree with the resignation.
That was a very bad idea on his part.
I disagree with jumping to conclusions- and then claiming "Oh so and so must be truly terrible! Someone ought to remove them immediately from their office!"

The reason for this is because there may very well be a rational explanation.

As a Hypothetical Situation:
Let's take that same college president, but change the situation slightly. Let's assume that all of the people who were present at that party were his own family members, on a private boat, during a family reunion.
Now, let's say that photo from that event was circulated and people seeing it ASSUME that those are coeds and he's fraternizing and they Also Assume that those coeds are underage.

This is the reason why I said all that I said.

Jumping to conclusions is just plain wrong.
If that IS actually the case and those ARE students that he will be evaluating- then that is absolutely wrong and most definitely conduct unbecoming and grounds for dismissal.
IS that the case?
I'm getting Very, very, very, very, very, very tired of repeating myself here.

I am not defending Paxton nor am I claiming his resignation was wrong.
I am saying that prior to jumping to conclusions we should understand the situations reality.
If that was, in fact, a situation like the one I listed as hypothetical above, then YES, I would say that his dismissal or forced resignation would have been wrong.
Publius already nailed it- He should have been dismissed when he was caught falsifying athlete grades.
That particular article made it sound like he did NOT falsify grades but rather, tried to protect those who had.
If the latter is the case, I could respect him for that.
Also, the article makes it pretty clear that the entire staff of the college felt that he was a very good college president.

So it's really anyones guess, here, with only that one article to go on.

That's an odd statement. There's plenty of evidence for differences between different populations. For example, the maths test scores of aboriginal Australians are dramatically lower than those of the Australian population. The extent to which these differences are innate is unclear, but that lack of clarity does not constitute evidence that there are no innate differences. What you wrote is part of the dogma of political correctness, not science.

I did indeed read it, and it was very interesting material, so I thank you.

It was intended primarily to battle eugenicists notions of there being a "hierarchy" of races which came about from humanity evolving from a single race to different ethnicities due to environment.

I certainly applaud efforts to prove a "hierarchy" to be utter nonsense.

The fact that skull structure was able to change in a single generation (!) is indeed quite interesting. It shows evolution at work, and although it occured on a very small time scale which has been traditionally viewed as impossible by mainstream evolutionary theory, it does demonstrate a remarkable ability to adapt to new conditions.

As a result of this new data I would amend previous statements to include the assumption that if accelerated evolutionary adaptation can indeed occur and is occuring, such rapid change could in fact eliminate any genetic gap between male and female math, logic, and spatial acuity aptitude within only a generation or two, assuming that a large enough proportion of females are actively engaged in the activites that previously were delegated only to males.

Since it has been approximately two generations since women joined the workforce, one could even argue that the gap is being eliminated as we speak and may soon disappear, although I'd argue that the time of that happening has not quite arrived, as women were not present in nearly the level that they are today in the era of post-WWII through the start of the feminist movement of the sixties and seventies.

I would also note that it is still prevalent for females to be assigned tasks designed to play to assumed strengths and weaknesses. For instance the position of receptionist is to this day a predominately female occupation, as employers are reluctant to hire men for a job that involves heavy multi-tasking, advanced communication skills, interpersonal relations with clients entering the establishment, and language skills in the form of proofreading and composing correspondence.

The same can also be said of administrative assistant duties and in the restaurant business, hostess/host positions and waitressing (dexterity and communication/interpersonal relationship skills).

The stigmata about a male taking one of these jobs (or a female taking others which are traditionally male roles) is however no longer one that is usually prevalent in most geographical areas and job fields. The term "server" has replaced "waitress" or "waiter," "host" instead of only "hostess," and "administrative assistant" replacing the older "secretary."

Hopefully the variation in both genders for different job types will continue to rise so that the process of integration and evolution can be accelerated, and males may acquire the predisposition for the skills they statistically lag in, and ditto for females.

That it may be possible for the gap to be closed is quite encouraging.

__________________

So you believe in Lamarckian evolution? That's ATM.

Just dissembling this statement.

I disagree- Evolution theory does not set a time frame for change to occur.
Generally, changes take a long time to take effect- because of various factors...
But there is no set time, as much so as an observed average time.
Fast Change is not seen as impossible by any means, as long as selection is present to enable that change to occur quickly.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that evolution theory forbids fast change.
It is just more rare that a trait that arises is so advantageous that it takes over so quickly.

Let's just have a look at that claim:
(My bold, obviously)

That's the only response necessary. The rest of your argument is nothing but "let's not jump to conclusions when we don't have all the facts". Sorry, as I said, if I were on a court deciding if this man should go to jail, I would need some more facts. I won't get any more facts, so I can go only with what is on the table now-- and the picture painted is perfectly well matched to my deductions about it. You did not answer my question:
Why did you choose to make the replacement I indicated in bold above-- what could be your purpose in obfuscating thusly the proven facts of the situation? I suggest the reason is that you are rationalizing the incident to deal with some personal discomfort related to it, perhaps even subconsciously. Of course you won't like that, but I still await an answer.

Your powers of rationalization would appear to know no bounds. If I ever commit a crime, I sure hope you are on my jury.
If you can't see the sexual harassment dimension in that situation, and what distinguishes it from "drinking with several people" if those women are students (as I clearly stated before), then I'm afraid I don't have time to explain it to you. Consider yourself completely uninformed on the issue, which may go a long way to explain your rationalizations above.

Like I said, you are astonishingly uniformed on the topic of sexual harassment if you think that is a useful comparison.

No kidding.


You have a very strange way of expressing a lack of defending and whitewashing. Your quote was "KenG, pardon my bluntness, but it's commentary made in ignorance like this that resulted in his resignation", or have you forgotten already? So it's fine for you to presume that what led to his resignation was "commentary made in ignorance", but I'm "jumping to conclusions" when I'm appalled by this blatantly obvious transgression against the charge of a university president? I'll just leave it at: see publius' comments if you can't accept mine.

Not really.
While you are claiming that my having said he was sitting in the boat is some kind of imagined obfuscation- YOU are the one who has repeatedly claimed those depicted in the photo are underage.
The answer to your question:
I did no such thing.

I simply said that he was sitting in the boat- I did not go into detail- You having read that as some delusional obfuscation on your part does not prove intent to obfuscate on my part. To be more blunt: You're wrong in this guess.

You, however, have repeatedly claimed those depicted in the photo are underage.

So just get over it, KenG.
You're trying to read into something that simply is not there.
Which brings us to this...:
This is just so childish, out of line and so off base that I'm not even going to bother with it.
Grow up.

KenG, you really need to stop...
Take a breath...
And cut out all these allegations and accusations.
You have moved from ad hom attacks on a stranger to ad hom attacks on me now.

In the meantime: You, however, have repeatedly claimed those depicted in the photo are underage.
I agree. Because I refuse to cast judgment or condemnation without evidence that I Should?
On a Jury- you have the duty to discern whether or not the accused is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be guilty.

I would actually consider that you are just jumping on a PR and PC bandwagon and shouting "Sexual harassment!" whenever you THINK it MIGHT apply- whether that is the reality or not.

In other words.. Sexual Harassment is anything that might maybe could be possibly construed as such?

Nope. No Kidding.
And you have since moved from making attacks, allegations and accusations against Paxton- to making ad hom attacks, allegations and accusations against ME now.

I'll remind you:
You, however, have repeatedly claimed those depicted in the photo are underage.
I have been quite clear KenG.
Now... If you are failing to read all of the words in my post and you are failing to recognize a fallacy...
I can only direct you here:http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
I will accept no excuses at this point as to how anyone can claim that I am defending Paxton simply because I'm passing a reminder to check the facts prior to casting judgment.

What you just said did not even make sense...

PC knee jerk reactions are what cause a great many people to be forced into resignation. Those are comments made in ignorance.

Now- we are both a bit ignorant as to Paxton's personal situation- and I am not defending Paxton.

However, your repeated statements that Paxton contributed to the delinquency of Minors strongly suggest that you have already made up your mind on the issue and have little use for facts.

I don't know if those young folks are 21 or over or not.
Do you?
Considering this- Explain to me how you can repeatedly accuse me of :
Obfuscating
Defending Paxton
Being uneducated
Altering facts and...
Rationalizing
Having just been shown that you have
Jumped to conclusions and made allegations and accusations against me as well as the stranger
Claimed repeatedly that the other individuals in the boat are underage (Choosing facts?)
Obfuscated repeatedly about the underage issue and the sexual harassment issue
---I really think you need to demonstrate being more self aware before you fling so many Ad Hom attacks against me KenG.

ETA 1

I find it even "odder" that you apparently did not read your own link very carefully. For example, in that same link, it discusses the reasons why that population has a short life expectancy, something that on the surface could easily be as genetically linked as intellect, if not more so. The link then identifies factors thought to be at least partially responsible, thusly:
I'm sure you can see the significance of "genetic differences" not even being on the list. Now that doesn't prove there are no genetic differences, but it does prove that at least the author of the article felt there were ample other explanations that are far more obvious, such as the above list. Now, which of the entries on that list do you recognize might also affect math test scores as much as longevity contrasts?

Further, if you look directly at the math scores in question, you find that in year 3 of school, the aborigines are about 14 percentage points below their Australian counterparts (whatever that number means exactly), whereas by year 7, it has grown to 31 percentage points. Now, if this is a genetic effect, why are they getting "dumber" relative to their counterparts as they get older? And would the deficit shrink still further, down to perhaps the signal due to poor prenatal health practices or poor nutrition in the first years, if years 1 or 2 were considered?

A far more obvious explanation, which actually agrees with the other facts of the situation, is that their education is far inferior, as is their health, and their economic standing. Still, you think I should see this as troubling to my position that there is a general absence of genetic difference? No, I'm not bothered at all by this data vis a vis my thesis. I stand by my original comment-- no carefully controlled dataset has ever indicated that there exists a clear genetic difference in intelligence in any widespread human population, evolutionary history notwithstanding. So that's the real news story here, even if small and relatively inconsequential differences cannot be completely ruled out.
Again, you mistake where falls the burden of proof. There is no controlled evidence for any innate differences, that is the real news that we should be noticing in all this-- and no differences should be suggested in the absence of evidence (as per the obvious requirements of fairness and human dignity). But I will amend my statement as follows, in response to your comment:
"But when looking over full populations, what is so striking about humanity is the extreme absence of any solid evidence of fundamental differences in innate properties like intelligence, math, and analytic skills.." (addendum in bold)

People can see whatever they wish to see if they try hard enough. You could just as easily call it "attempted assault and battery" because a beer spigot is a pointy item that you could whap someone around with. (an example)

What you happen to see though is a phallic symbol. Why you would interpret it that way is beyond me, except that it supports some vague "sexual harassment" interpretation that you are eager to find.

Freud himself was the first person to say "Sometimes a cigar (beer spigot) is just a cigar."

__________________

I find it strains credibility that you view the replacements I bolded as anything but a blatant obfuscation, but if you think it is "imagined", I guess there's not much I can say other than-- ask someone else.
Incorrect, if you review my posts, you will see that I never actually made that claim. However, I did intimate that I strongly suspect it, as do many others I should think, and I agree with publius that if I'm on that college board, and I can't convince this clown to resign, I'm going to follow up by investigating those suspicions. The very fact that he did resign speaks volumes to me-- I have strong suspicion that photo is the tip of a very deep and very sordid iceberg, on the basis that I have not just fallen off a cabbage truck.
Riiiight..., that's "simply" all you did. There's a river in Egypt about that.

You see an ad hom attack there? I am merely asking you why you are so deeply in denial about the significance of interpreting that photo as a man "sitting on a boat". If you see that challenge as an "ad hominem attack", I am then led to suspect a level of defensiveness that is covering yet more unresolved issues in this area.All right, I was kind of joking about that. I'm sure you would be a perfectly competent juror-- when you had the facts. Why you find it so hard to see the reality behind that photo, however, is still something of a mystery to me, and I really think you should look into it.
I agree that a person on this forum has a much higher expectation of being treated fairly and nonjudgementally than some stranger who will never see our comments, but still I do not see anything I've said as an attack on you, merely as pointing out some things I suggest you would benefit from noticing: to wit, your posts on this thread reveal a complete lack of understanding of what sexual harassment is, even as you complain about some perceived PC mafia. I claim it is completely uncontroversial to anyone who does know what sexual harassment is that the analogies and comparisons you've offered demonstrate that you do not. That's not an attack, it's just an observation. Don't you want to know if you are uninformed about sexual harassment, before you denigrate those entrusted to protect us from it?
I guess I'll have to remind you again of your statement in question:
" but it's commentary made in ignorance like this that resulted in his resignation". How could anyone claim that is not defending Paxton-- I'm still just as mystified on that score. Since you asked, I suppose you are entitled to the answers:Because you replaced an obvious photo of the man pouring beer down a young woman's throat with him "sitting on a boat".
Because you said he was forced to resign because people jumped to conclusions about that photo, rather than the far more likely possibility that this man has no business being anywhere near a college presidency.
Because you equated sexual harassment with drinking beer with your plumber buddies
The abovementioned word replacement.
Because you denied that word replacement had the obvious significance that it has.

Now we're moving from the silly to the ridiculous. I'm sorry, if you cannot look at that photo and see that a college president is pouring beer down the throat of a young woman who is either a student at that college or someone who anyone could easily associate as a peer of said students, then there's not much hope for the democratic system of relying on the common sense of the public. Perhaps you are unaware that all college officials need to set an example of the kind of behavior that we are attempting to promote in our students, and perhaps you are unaware that binge drinking is a severe problem at US colleges, leading to incidents like http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in649375.shtml.

Whatever.
Reviewed. Found:
Incidentally... I also noticed that you repeatedly accuse other posters as rationalizing as well.

Right.
That's as simple as it was.
And do NOT accuse me of Lying again KenG.

Your blatant ad hom attacks are just getting worse. I think this will be my last post in regards to you in this debate as you are clearly demonstrating an inability to prevent yourself from attacking my personal character.

Your vagrant suspicions are irrelevant to reality.
And this is yet, another, attack on my character with more speculations.
You are still treating this like I'm defending Paxton.
I put them in neat little boxes for you already.
Look Again.
Merely.. is that like simply?
A bit late. Your personal attacks on my character have been more than clear- which you went even further with adding speculations about my personal life.
Actually, the uninformed about sexual harassment statements were not a major issue which I called Ad Hom. Read the rest of your posts again.
From what I have seen in your posts, you clearly find sexual harassment to be anything where a male and a female are together in which any other person MIGHT possibly maybe could construe that the male or female have sexual intentions or indications.
This seems very vague to me.
I just didn't go into detail about EVERYTHING that was in the photo KenG.
So cut that junk out already- I'm actually beginning to get annoyed with these continued accusations of obfuscating now.
If I had KNOWN you were going to act so determined and obsessive with that sentence, I would have written it better.

Your initial reaction after having seen the photo with your suspicions percelating and generating speculations was that he was a "Clown" that had "no business in that career path."
Now- You may be right about that. But you may also be wrong.
It is not about whether you are right or wrong on that issue- but that you decided Immediately on no other information than your suspicious speculations.

I am Grateful that you are not a Cop or Judge.

My point was that people drinking together does not equal sexual harassment.
Are you claiming that it does?

And you seem to be obsessing over it with suspicious speculations that are NOT a part of REALITY.

So- STOP CLAIMING I OBFUSCATED
You're wrong about that and I've Really Had Enough of your Persistent - almost paranoid type rationale- determination in complaining that I have.
I have repeatedly told you that you're wrong about that and unless you can read my thoughts...

...Which you cannot...

You're just going to have to deal with the fact that you misinterpreted my meaning and Get Off my Back About It.

Goodness that remark reveals a complete lack of understanding of how genetic evolution works. I wouldn't even know where to start, frankly. I refer you to a textbook on evolution.
Regardless of your false conclusions about the role of evolution here, if your thinking leads you to believe that whatever genetic differences you believe existed 50 years ago will soon be gone, then I'll have to settle for the right conclusion for the wrong reason and call us in agreement.

He said that the tap on the keg was broken.

You can see NO beer Flowing in the photo.

Clarify What Markers are present In the photo that prove that the girl IS a Student of His or at his school.
Clarify what markers are present In that Photo that prove ANY of those people are students.
I am not claiming they are not students. I am pointing out that the photo- by itself, does NOT show that they are, in fact, students. You're guessing.
Prove that he was, in fact, pouring beer.

A photo is NOT incriminating evidence.

I could probably go take a perfectly innocent photo that just LOOKS incriminating and show it to you and watch you with amusement as you fly off the handle and screamed, "He's GUILTY! Guilty I tell you!! Guilty!Guilty!Guilty!"

Sorry, I still don't see where I claimed there was underage drinking on that boat. Review yet again. All right, you are not ready. I get it.
I would say with some certainty that I may be right, or I may be wrong, about anything I say-- even that.

Where did you get the sense that I claimed that? Anyway, it's obvious we're not going to get any further on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

Good point. You did not clarify it as happening on the boat specifically and undeniably.
Whatever.
Irrelevant to the issue that we are debating.
It appears that we will.
Not so much because we are both making good cases...
But rather because I am just plain tired of you accusations of rationalizing and obfuscating, speculations about me personally and your rather clear ad homs against me which you continually deny making.

Your mind was made up the second you saw that photo and you have no intentions of realizing that.
So yeah, we will need to drop it before one of our tempers blow.

ETA 2

I went above with ETA 1 and put your ad hom and speculations about my personal life and character statements in bold for you KenG- to answer your lingering questions as to what they were.
I did not get all of them- only as many as my patience will allow me to bother with right now.

Actually, I know perfectly well when my mind was made up-- when I finished putting together all the information in that article, and it showed a perfectly clear picture of a man with no business being a college president, because he is insensitive to issues of athletic fraud and the perception of encouraging binge drinking among students or peers of students, and because he is quite willing to lie to try and conceal these facts. I then formed an opinion of him as someone who would rather lie about the incident than face up to the implications of the situation. I then checked that impression against the last tidbit of evidence I could later compile-- that he further claimed he was only trying to take the non-working keg away from the woman. Anyone who thinks these are plausible claims of what is happening in that picture is obviously deeply in denial about their own rationalizations, and might want to look at why.

That is my entire argument, I retract any personal offense you may have taken in my making of that argument. If all you want is for me to recognize that there is a chance, no matter how small, that my judgements of Paxton are incorrect, and that he is actually a consciencious supporter of honesty and responsible behavior who has been horribly wronged by accidents of circumstance, then yes, I freely admit there is such a tiny probability, and in a court of law, we would need to look more deeply into that.

So far, I don't really disagree with any of this.
What I would disagree with is the making of claims that the photo does not support, the accusation of deeds not supported or the casting of judgment too quickly.
Not necessarily KenG. We can apply these same arguments in a Moon Hoax Thread- and you will find that my statements hold up as a scientific viewpoint on the issue.
Compare them if you don't believe me.
Then I would suggest taking the moments necessary to Stop
And Think
prior to making speculations about my personal life and character.
The whole thing could have been avoided had you done so from the start.
Statements like these:
were simply unwarranted, unnecessary to make your argument and mostly based on your perception and judgment of my motives and intentions which were inaccurate and grossly in error.

It was more that you appeared to jump to immediate conclusions which prompted my blunt statement that perhaps we should look deeper prior to casting premature judgments.

This speaks nothing as to Paxtons actual guilt.