Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making a lot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now..

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

That's stupid, even for you. If there is any brand image involved, it's
affirmative action, giving preference to minorities, which appeals to libs
like you.

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making
admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over
Asians.

Maybe the brand image doesn't involve a lot of clever oriental-looking students.

Did you note that Harvard and MIT were not schools that rich people paid bribes to get their children admitted.

The people doing the bribing weren't rich enough to pay the kind of bribe that works at Harvard.

So, Stanford and Yale get bribed for significantly less? And how much does
it take to bribe an athletic director or similar at any college? In most
cases, they were not buying a new building for the college, just paying
off someone inside, it went into their personal pocket.

That doesn't seem to have worked at Harvard - there it does seem to take a new building.

BS. All it means is the skunk in CA who managed to cultivate skunks at
other schools, was unable to do that, for whatever reason, at Harvard
and many other schools. Just because you have an in at some colleges
doesn't mean that you have them at all colleges. You can't just call up
on the phone and offer a bribe. If you could the parents would not have
been paying the lead skunk, they could have done it themselves.

MIT doesn't have the kind of allure that attracts rich people - Noam Chomsky worked there for many years,

Figures that you'd be familiar with that commie loon.

He's not a communist, but an anarcho-syndicalist (and communists haven't like them since they got Karl Marx chucked out of the international socialist movement in 1871).

And he's not remotely lunatic. For psycholinguists he's roughly equivalent to what Newton is for physicists (if rather less nasty-natured).

though he has recently been persuaded to move to Arizona (by a bunch of people who include a few acquaintances).

One factor might be that Harvard tries very hard to interview every applicant. That and both of those colleges are not known as party schools..

The reputation as not-party-schools probably has more to do with it.

Stanford is a party school?

No idea.

Applicants to those sorts of colleges can get tutored on how to interview well.

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

As can the applicants for any of the other schools and I would expect
most of those arrested did that too. The parents wanted a sure thing
and were willing to pay for it.

Paying for extra tutoring, and making sure that the kids have aced the extracurricular activities is perfectly legal, though it can be counter-productive in the long term.

Bribing admissions staff isn't.

No shit? Captain Obvious strikes again!

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:13ea291c-a5d8-4367-b1c0-f414cfd64f5d@googlegroups.com:

I wasn't talking about a "medal or other". I'm talking about who
is recognized as the developers of a new technology. The fact
that Hu is not only credited with it, but received industry awards
and medals, only adds icing to the cake. Why is it libs have
such a hard time dealing with FACTS?

That was 1999. NOT 'new technology'.

Are you really this stupid or do you just play stupid? It was new at
the time. We were talking about who created this new technology, fool.

You fully ignored (par for the course) my response. He concieved
it.

The reference I provided says he DEVELOPED it at Berkley, which of course
is what you claimed some still unknown woman did, at MIT. Funny huh?
Do a Google and hit after hit are Hu at Berkley.



They even grew one. they even developed it until they reached

the actual finfet 'realm'. However, the finfet we all know of being
used in chips at nanometer scale is an MIT thing.

FACT!

If it's fact, where are your cites? Who is this mystery woman? She should
be widely recognized if what you claim is true. Show us paper she wrote?
Industry recognition? Recognition from MIT? Hello?

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:36:41 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:5301a807-cd37-418d-a637-
0a4e2930dbb8@googlegroups.com:

Stanford is a party school?



Political party, you D U M B F U C K !!!

ROFL.

Like K says, always wrong. Obviously the comment the other poster made
about party schools, was about colleges that have a party school reputation.
It was not about political parties. Maybe if he's honest enough, he will
chime in and say so, but it was 100% clear to everyone, but you of course.
Always wrong.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:35:20 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:eed57c45-85df-4cf2-a0b3-aace336e7bcd@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:48:21 PM UTC+10,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:22:45 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually might still teach
something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now, nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.

As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of
California, Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor
for developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first
company to use FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most
radical shift in semiconductor technology in over 50 years.
By 2015 all top servers, computers, Android and ios phones
use FinFET processors. He received the National Technology
and Innovation Medal from President Obama in the White House
in 2016. The world's largest technology association IEEE
called him "Microelectronics Visionary" when presenting him
the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for "achievements critical to
producing smaller yet more reliable and higher-performance
integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.

Next!

You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing
as
you go.


So then you can provide us with cites where the daughter of your
boss got credit. How about her name and we can all Google it?

Not a good idea, granting the nut-cases who post here.

The process of working out who is going to get some medal or other
is intensely political, and the actual contribution to the
innovation plays a fairly minor part in the selection process.
Political clout is much more important.


Oh you can bet the idiot is going to go on believing his own
bullshit. He is the only one right... He is a full on legend...
in his own mind.

And I knew that me stating something on the achievement would
start all the Trumpanzee mentality (whether they voted for the
dumbfuck or not)

Why does Trump so frequently enter your posts? You must be suffering
from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yet you are a lot like him, impulsive,
uncontrollable, nasty, divisive and you have the same simplistic and
mostly wrong ideas on trade.





idiots going on the mouth off hayride.

They can mouth off all they want. I know the truth. This chick
makes some of the tiniest features of man's fabrication prowess
ever.

Must be talking about your dick now.

Growing small quantities of molecules in very specific locations
is not easy, much less connecting layers of the same together in
very precise manners.

As usual, redirection into the wilderness. This has nothing to do with
WHO is credited with the advancement.

This TraderTard4 is a google chump at best. He knows nothing
about electronics.

I know that you don't have a single reference, credible or not, to back
up your claim that the daughter of your boss invented finFET at MIT.
Anyone can google, all the hits come back to Hu at Berkley. Nuff said.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:20:30 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:20:34 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 1:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:37:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d53b9f8-dd3a-421c-b0f7-81a15248666e@googlegroups.com:

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the
same as it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.

You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty
has changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.

Just like K says, always wrong. The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on
poverty began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The income level used to define the poverty line has been inflation adjusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

No shit Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years.

But you didn't spell out how "poverty" was defined.

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US, you would
know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+ years by the
Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could find out with an easy
Google search that would show hit after hit, that it's the most common
and widely used measure. Obviously I made an error in judgment, I should
have known libs are helpless and need others to do things for them.





In fact it has been based on family income, in dollars, since 1964, but the way that dollar threshold has been calculated doesn't directly involve the inflation rate as such.

Well of course it does, fool. The number has been adjusted each year
based on inflation.

That would be remarkably stupid, even for a lib.

Your claim was that "The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began." Inflation adjustment is a change, though not a particularly fundamental one.

It's not a change to the definition and only a silly lib would think that
you would not adjust the NUMBER for inflation over 50 years.

But it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. It's actually been adjusted on the cost of a particular basket of basic foods, which tracks inflation to some extent, but by no means perfectly.

WRONG. The Census Bureau adjusts it each year using the CPI. Rest of your
BS deleted, you don't even comprehend the basics, which are readily available
with a google search.

 

"Two thoughts. One is that it's cruel to put a student into a >school that they are not qualified to be in, it will be pure >hell, they may flunk out or kill themselves. "

More thoughts. While it is cruel to put someone in a situation they can't handle they should know when yo get out. Failure has become unacceptable and now they are lowering the bar to reduce failure. That is very wrong.

I took a course in machining, I quit fairly quickly because for one I wasn't taking to it so to speak. I really can't do it, but it's not like I can't do anything. People need to learn that it is OK to fail as long as you get up and try again. (well something else, don't be insane and repeat)

As far as them killing themselves, well we can't deprive a whole generation because of some whose Parents didn't teach them right. And the Parents of kids who commit suicide should take a good look at their Parenting methods.

>Better that they are in a place fit for their capabilities. "

Trade schools are a great place. You get out quick without a tom of debt and start working almost immediately because the demand is there. While those who went to college and struggled with it and still are facing six figure debt before they ever even get a job, you will have a house half paid off. Well not quite. And of course your lifetime earnings will suffer, like to the tune of a cool million, BUT... Split that up into your total time in the workforce. Not that much when put into perspective now is it ?

"Second, I think the parents did this more for their own
bragging rights, than to make sure that their kids had the best >education.."

Unfortunately probably very true. Nobody wants to tel their friends "Yeah, my boy is the biggest crack dealer on 112th street, he gots a Cadillac AND Lincoln". On the other end of the spectrum we got the sires and incubators that just don't care and should have been spayed and neutered at birth.

So really, are those "bragging rights" such a bad thing ? Beats neglect.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US, you
would know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+ years
by the Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could find out
with an easy Google search that would show hit after hit, that
it's the most common and widely used measure. Obviously I made
an error in judgment, I should have known libs are helpless and
need others to do things for them.

The census bureau... right. ONCE every ten years.

We live in the information age, and you want to rely on numbers
only gathered once every ten years, and only data where the
respondents answered truthfully, which oh yeah... we know is never
the case.

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 4:33:46 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 13:04:52 -0700, trader4 wrote:

You're the racist and stupid to boot.

... I suggest you KF Sloman.
You will *never* win him over with reason.

No, with rhetoric like that, 'with reason' is definitely out of the question.
Congratulations, CD, you got one sentence right!

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Don't have to go back that far. The Democrats were the party of the
KKK, right down to their leadership. Senator Robert Byrd wasn't
called "Sheets Byrd" for nothing.

Not the fault of the Democratic party, though; the Byrd machine was
referred to as 'Virginia Democrats' because they were completely
OUT of touch with the rest of their party.

Byrd's son went to the Senate as independent, but always voted Republican.

 

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b472b051-f2d1-49ed-bad8-
5097a4bc06eb@googlegroups.com:


As K says, always wrong.


You prove again that you are always retarded.

Yep. AlwaysWrong.

 

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:53:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Don't have to go back that far. The Democrats were the party of the
KKK, right down to their leadership. Senator Robert Byrd wasn't
called "Sheets Byrd" for nothing.

Not the fault of the Democratic party, though; the Byrd machine was
referred to as 'Virginia Democrats' because they were completely
OUT of touch with the rest of their party.

Oh, stop the bullshit! The Democrats loved him.

Byrd's son went to the Senate as independent, but always voted Republican.

Only a lefty could believe that the sins of the father are the sins of
the son. You are some piece of work! ...but you are a Democrat.

 

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:59:20 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US, you
would know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+ years
by the Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could find out
with an easy Google search that would show hit after hit, that
it's the most common and widely used measure. Obviously I made
an error in judgment, I should have known libs are helpless and
need others to do things for them.



The census bureau... right. ONCE every ten years.

AlwaysWrong. *Always*.

We live in the information age, and you want to rely on numbers
only gathered once every ten years, and only data where the
respondents answered truthfully, which oh yeah... we know is never
the case.

Amazingly *wrong*, AlwaysWrong.

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

In your case, just 'amazingly stupid'.

> That decidedly makes you... "a child".

Simply amazing!

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:24:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making a lot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now..

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

That's stupid, even for you. If there is any brand image involved, it's
affirmative action, giving preference to minorities, which appeals to libs
like you.

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making
admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over
Asians.

That may be what the suit is trying to argue. My guess is that the Asian students who do well are doing well in part because their families are getting them to concentrate on their studies to the exclusion of everything else, and the Harvard interviewers are after a better-balanced student intake, and don't actually care what kind of racial mix they end up with.

They may not even monitor the racial mix they end up with - it can be a wise precaution if you expect to get sued.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

krw@notreal.com wrote in
news:qquhceh8cri6u1s6isek1071dttstfmk2i@4ax.com:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:53:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com
wrote:

Don't have to go back that far. The Democrats were the party of
the KKK, right down to their leadership. Senator Robert Byrd
wasn't called "Sheets Byrd" for nothing.

Not the fault of the Democratic party, though; the Byrd machine
was referred to as 'Virginia Democrats' because they were
completely OUT of touch with the rest of their party.

Oh, stop the bullshit! The Democrats loved him.

Byrd's son went to the Senate as independent, but always voted
Republican.

Only a lefty could believe that the sins of the father are the
sins of the son. You are some piece of work! ...but you are a
Democrat.

You are a real piece of SHIT. You are NOT a Republican.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US, you
would know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+ years
by the Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could find out
with an easy Google search that would show hit after hit, that
it's the most common and widely used measure. Obviously I made
an error in judgment, I should have known libs are helpless and
need others to do things for them.



The census bureau... right. ONCE every ten years.

As K says, always wrong. You actually think the Census Bureau only does
the one constitutionally mandated census of the US population and we have
an entire bureau with thousands of employees that sits on it's ass for
nine years? They perform many other functions, one of which is the
YEARLY update on poverty, which they do EVERY YEAR.

We live in the information age, and you want to rely on numbers
only gathered once every ten years, and only data where the
respondents answered truthfully, which oh yeah... we know is never
the case.

No, you're just wrong again.

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, libs.
I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum, but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:24:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making a lot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now..

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

That's stupid, even for you. If there is any brand image involved, it's
affirmative action, giving preference to minorities, which appeals to libs
like you.

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making
admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over
Asians.

That may be what the suit is trying to argue.

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about the facts
and just proceed to pontificating.



My guess is that the Asian students who do well are doing well in part because their families are getting them to concentrate on their studies to the exclusion of everything else, and the Harvard interviewers are after a better-balanced student intake, and don't actually care what kind of racial mix they end up with.

Again, if you bothered to even look at the facts, you'd see that Harvard does
not deny that they take race into account. As do many other, probably most
colleges.

They may not even monitor the racial mix they end up with - it can be a wise precaution if you expect to get sued.

snip

Anything else you want to wildly speculate on today?

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:51:13 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:24:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail..com wrote:

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making
admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over
Asians.

That may be what the suit is trying to argue.

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about the facts
and just proceed to pontificating.

Your insight into the legal facts being argued would be remarkable, if you had a clue what you are talking about. The Guardian report wasn't all that specific.

You invent your "facts" then complain that other peopel aren't inventing the same "facts".

My guess is that the Asian students who do well are doing well in part because their families are getting them to concentrate on their studies to the exclusion of everything else, and the Harvard interviewers are after a better-balanced student intake, and don't actually care what kind of racial mix they end up with.

Again, if you bothered to even look at the facts, you'd see that Harvard does
not deny that they take race into account. As do many other, probably most
colleges.

They don't admit it either.

They may not even monitor the racial mix they end up with - it can be a wise precaution if you expect to get sued.

snip

Anything else you want to wildly speculate on today?

You seem to think that what you post is based is all soundly evidence-based, but your comprehension of what constitutes "evidence" isn't great, and you aren't in a great position to complain about other people's "wild speculations" when what you post reflects an imperfect comprehension of what's gong on filtered through some remarkably stupid right-wing prejudice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:46:01 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:4569d0bf-2976-437f-9be0-b5328c8d20a8@googlegroups.com:

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing
with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

I don't call people who disagree with me libs, unless they are, well, libs.

But rabid right-wingers see the 99% of the population who are less right-wing than they are as a homogeneous mass of liberals.

There is political gradient up from the extreme right up to middle of the road after which it goes downhill a bit to the extreme left.

There's also another more or less orthogonal gradient from totalitarian (communist/fascist) to democratic (socialist/libertarian) that no American seems to understand.

> I have no idea where you fit on the political spectrum,

Largely because you don't know much about politics.

but we do know where
you are on the intelligence spectrum and correctness. Always wrong.

An opinion you share with krw, which isn't exactly exulted company.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

"Why does Trump so frequently enter your posts? You must be >suffering
from Trump Derangement Syndrome. "

Wow, I thought the expression "Trump Derangement Syndrome" was endemic to a certain other (private) group I'm in.

Know another symptom ? They think we all think Trump is perfect. He is far from perfect, he is however much better than that autistic bitch socialist criminal pimp "buyer broker" and general traitor that ran against him.

If the democrats ever want the whitehouse the main thing they have to do is to put up a candidate that AT LEAST doesn't PROMISE to destroy our way of life.

As they sit now they are going to lose even more power come 2020. There is almost no way they can take the senate, there ain't enough ghettos in many states to vote for welfare. They can get house reps by choosing the right district, but senators are a little different. What's more some of the recently elected idiots are like to be seated again.

Got to find that voter registration card and nail it to the wall...

 

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:34:10 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:51:13 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:05:35 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:24:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Silly lib, that's what the freaking suit is about. That Harvard is making
admission decisions on race and favoring blacks and other minorities over
Asians.

That may be what the suit is trying to argue.

May be? Google broken again? Amazing how libs don't care about the facts
and just proceed to pontificating.

Your insight into the legal facts being argued would be remarkable, if you had a clue what you are talking about. The Guardian report wasn't all that specific.

Like I asked, is Google broken? Your browser stuck to that one website?

You invent your "facts" then complain that other peopel aren't inventing the same "facts".

That's a lie. I used the facts of the Harvard case.

My guess is that the Asian students who do well are doing well in part because their families are getting them to concentrate on their studies to the exclusion of everything else, and the Harvard interviewers are after a better-balanced student intake, and don't actually care what kind of racial mix they end up with.

Again, if you bothered to even look at the facts, you'd see that Harvard does
not deny that they take race into account. As do many other, probably most
colleges.

They don't admit it either.

Yes they do, as have many other, probably most universities in the US.
They take it into account for everything from affirmative action to claims
of wanting a diverse student population.

They may not even monitor the racial mix they end up with - it can be a wise precaution if you expect to get sued.

snip

Anything else you want to wildly speculate on today?

You seem to think that what you post is based is all soundly evidence-based, but your comprehension of what constitutes "evidence" isn't great, and you aren't in a great position to complain about other people's "wild speculations" when what you post reflects an imperfect comprehension of what's gong on filtered through some remarkably stupid right-wing prejudice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

This from the dope that has his browser stuck to one UK source for a case
that's been widely covered in the USA.