This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559613
This is pretty devastating IMO. This is Ms Mitchell’s Summary memo regarding her questioning of Dr Ford. In it you can see why it doesn’t take a very long stretch of imagination to doubt her story. It’s very well laid out and dispassionate. It gives reasons why her story is doubtful in precise bullet point format. Again, if The Truth is what matters here, Dr Ford needs to have a Forensic Interview as part of this FBI investigation. But it’s not and she won’t. (I found page 3 the most interesting)

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... ysis/3221/
By olldflame
Registration Days Posts
#559619
Purple Haize wrote:This is pretty devastating IMO. This is Ms Mitchell’s Summary memo regarding her questioning of Dr Ford. In it you can see why it doesn’t take a very long stretch of imagination to doubt her story. It’s very well laid out and dispassionate. It gives reasons why her story is doubtful in precise bullet point format. Again, if The Truth is what matters here, Dr Ford needs to have a Forensic Interview as part of this FBI investigation. But it’s not and she won’t. (I found page 3 the most interesting)

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... ysis/3221/
It will be completely disregarded based soley on the fact that she was chosen/hired by the Republicans on the committee.
By olldflame
Registration Days Posts
#559621
Here is Mitchell questioning Ford on whether anyone had recommended she have a Forensic Interview (apparently not).



The fact that she now refuses to have one is IMHO pretty revealing.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559625
Jonathan Carone wrote:That's a pretty damning document. Thanks for posting it.
Had Ms Mitchell come out in her report and said “ I think there might be something there, no matter how small” I’d have been open to it. She was the only trained professional in the room who dealt with situations like this. It’s why I’m glad the Republicans took that route. If any of them had produced a memo like this it would have immediately been written off. This one probably will too, since she was hired by Republicans, but having read it, the Summation is very factual and nonpartisan
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559628
oldflame wrote:Here is Mitchell questioning Ford on whether anyone had recommended she have a Forensic Interview (apparently not).



The fact that she now refuses to have one is IMHO pretty revealing.
That was the most significant part of the questioning and one I’m puzzled hasn’t been focused on. The best way to get to the Truth was not advised by Rep Eshoo, Sen Feinstein or any of her Attorneys. I totally get retaining a lawyer and scrubbing Social Media. But I don’t get (well I sorta do) ignoring the best route to find accurate facts
User avatar
By CCWMichael
Posts
#559651
[/quote]
No, you were just plain wrong. It’s okay to admit it.[/quote]

In reality …. I intend to clarify some things here.
Many of us understand professional licensing and ethics as I do. Required for my license.
Every national authority in the field of psychology (and many other fields) requires licensure to be able to use a title.
I have seen many young doctors come through our practice and fail their exams. Some would say it is just a test and undue pressure, but many times decisions must be made under pressure so being able to access knowledge in a timely manner can be critical. Licensing does matter.
I have read the California Licensing decision in this matter. I do not agree with it, but it is what California thinks is best. California has contemplated the expectation that when a person hears the word psychologist there is an expectation of certain knowledge and ability. This is more for consumers than anything else however professionals over the country have the same expectation. California feels that for retention and easier hiring ability in California licensure for research psychologist is not required. The presumption is this field is all about the math. Their decision was to require that research psychologist cannot and will not see any consumers under the pretense they understand the human psyche.
Not the norm but it is what it is.
<< I gained this information through the minutes of the California board. >>
User avatar
By adam42381
Registration Days Posts
#559654
CCWMichael wrote:
No, you were just plain wrong. It’s okay to admit it.[/quote]

In reality …. I intend to clarify some things here.
Many of us understand professional licensing and ethics as I do. Required for my license.
Every national authority in the field of psychology (and many other fields) requires licensure to be able to use a title.
I have seen many young doctors come through our practice and fail their exams. Some would say it is just a test and undue pressure, but many times decisions must be made under pressure so being able to access knowledge in a timely manner can be critical. Licensing does matter.
I have read the California Licensing decision in this matter. I do not agree with it, but it is what California thinks is best. California has contemplated the expectation that when a person hears the word psychologist there is an expectation of certain knowledge and ability. This is more for consumers than anything else however professionals over the country have the same expectation. California feels that for retention and easier hiring ability in California licensure for research psychologist is not required. The presumption is this field is all about the math. Their decision was to require that research psychologist cannot and will not see any consumers under the pretense they understand the human psyche.
Not the norm but it is what it is.
<< I gained this information through the minutes of the California board. >>[/quote]
Somewhat related question: Should Jerry Falwell (and many other pastors) have been using the title of Doctor?
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#559660
I say No but its not even close to the same thing.

People with honorary doctorates aren't claiming to be medical drs.

I don't had a dog in the fight but you haven't exactly proven to be an unbiased source over the years.

With all of that said this insertion did come from infowars and so therefore is going to quickly be dismissed.
By Yacht Rock
Registration Days Posts
#559661
LOL, personally, I refer to very few people as "doctor." I understand that rankles some people, but I'll also add that in most workplaces I've worked, they don't allow people with a Ph.D. to be referred to as "Dr."
User avatar
By BJWilliams
Registration Days Posts
#559672
Hirono was avoiding questions about if they were responsible for leaking Ford's letter to the press among other things. If she says they did, they basically get nailed to the wall for politicizing a tenuous allegation of sexual assault at best. If she says no and it comes out that someone did, and they get that answer under oath, they could be nailed to the wall for perjury and/or obstruction of justice...both of which are impeachable offenses (which they STILL haven't been able to find for their myopic quest to get rid of President Trump)
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559678
thepostman wrote:I say No but its not even close to the same thing.

People with honorary doctorates aren't claiming to be medical drs.

I don't had a dog in the fight but you haven't exactly proven to be an unbiased source over the years.

With all of that said this insertion did come from infowars and so therefore is going to quickly be dismissed.
I think it’s a relevant distinction but not Earth shattering. Her defenders are saying “But she’s a Psychologist. She’s a Doctor”. So when people hear that they believe she has a clinical practice and sees patients which is supposed to lend to her credibility. In California one doesn’t need the licensure if they are doing the math side of things and not seeing patients which I believe she is doing. She’s a Doctor. I would call her Doctor if I ever talked to her. But she is not a licensed psychologist nor a Psychologist in the manner most people think of the term
By LUDad
Posts
#559706
Purple Haize wrote:
thepostman wrote:I say No but its not even close to the same thing.

People with honorary doctorates aren't claiming to be medical drs.

I don't had a dog in the fight but you haven't exactly proven to be an unbiased source over the years.

With all of that said this insertion did come from infowars and so therefore is going to quickly be dismissed.
I think it’s a relevant distinction but not Earth shattering. Her defenders are saying “But she’s a Psychologist. She’s a Doctor”. So when people hear that they believe she has a clinical practice and sees patients which is supposed to lend to her credibility. In California one doesn’t need the licensure if they are doing the math side of things and not seeing patients which I believe she is doing. She’s a Doctor. I would call her Doctor if I ever talked to her. But she is not a licensed psychologist nor a Psychologist in the manner most people think of the term
Christine Margaret Blasey Ford (/ˈblɑːzi/;[6] born November 1966)[1] is an American professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

Question, can she call herself a "research psychologist"?
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#559711
This is kind of a related question but why does it seem to be perfectly acceptable for judges to interpret law conservatively or liberally?? Shouldn't a man or woman being appointed to the supreme court of the United States be able to interpret law without allowing their own personal political opinions to get in the way?

It bothers me that we can't seem to find unbiased judges to be part of the highest court in our country. Maybe I am just naive...
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559712
thepostman wrote:This is kind of a related question but why does it seem to be perfectly acceptable for judges to interpret law conservatively or liberally?? Shouldn't a man or woman being appointed to the supreme court of the United States be able to interpret law without allowing their own personal political opinions to get in the way?

It bothers me that we can't seem to find unbiased judges to be part of the highest court in our country. Maybe I am just naive...
Simple Human Nature. There’s even a Military axiom about it but I can’t remember which branch is which so I’ll fill in the blank “The Air Force believes that if The Book doesn’t say you can you can’t. The Marines believe if the Book doesn’t say you can’t you can”. That’s a huge difference
By LUDad
Posts
#559714
thepostman wrote:This is kind of a related question but why does it seem to be perfectly acceptable for judges to interpret law conservatively or liberally?? Shouldn't a man or woman being appointed to the supreme court of the United States be able to interpret law without allowing their own personal political opinions to get in the way?

It bothers me that we can't seem to find unbiased judges to be part of the highest court in our country. Maybe I am just naive...
I have to relate it to the Word. You can only correctly interpret scripture within the origional context and setting that it was written. Liberals liberate the Word from the origional by spiritualizing it meaning. Liberals do the same with the Constitution stating that it is a "living" document.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559716
LUDad wrote:
thepostman wrote:This is kind of a related question but why does it seem to be perfectly acceptable for judges to interpret law conservatively or liberally?? Shouldn't a man or woman being appointed to the supreme court of the United States be able to interpret law without allowing their own personal political opinions to get in the way?

It bothers me that we can't seem to find unbiased judges to be part of the highest court in our country. Maybe I am just naive...
I have to relate it to the Word. You can only correctly interpret scripture within the origional context and setting that it was written. Liberals liberate the Word from the origional by spiritualizing it meaning. Liberals do the same with the Constitution stating that it is a "living" document.
That’s also a great parallel. People interpret The Bible very differently. I’m not trying to start a debate on any of these but just to name a few things Christians disagree on reading the same Bible
KJV only
Can Christians Drink Alcohol
Can Christians get divorced
What kind of music should Christians listen to
Can women be Pastors
Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism

These are just a few things about a “document “ written over thousands of years. I don’t think we want to live in a World where we all think alike
By ballcoach15
Registration Days Posts
#559717
I am no Bible scholar, but my Bible says "women should remain silent in the church". Therefore, they cannot be Pastors. This is plain and simple. No need for interpretation , nor room for error.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#559718
ballcoach15 wrote:I am no Bible scholar, but my Bible says "women should remain silent in the church". Therefore, they cannot be Pastors. This is plain and simple. No need for interpretation , nor room for error.
Does this mean they should not sing in the choir?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
NCAA Realignment Megathread

Honestly, the ACC should've taken Wazzu and Oregon[…]

Dondi Costin - LU President

HEB is alright, but honestly Trader Joe's is my fa[…]

LaTech

Liberty 2 LaTech 0. Yoder pitched 1 hitter with 8 […]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]