Biden for President?

[Stacyhs]

Back when the media was far less corrupt than today....Biden was exposed for lying and plagerizing by ABC, PBS, CBS, NBC, (.Sam Donaldson, Connie Chung, David Gergen etc.) and others.


Why support a known plagerizering liar?


Who remembers this footage?

That's already been addressed.

I see you're a fan of the "fake news" mantra. You do realize that Trump told Leslie Stahl in 2018 that the reason he attacks the media is to discredit them:

‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.’”

Personally, I'd be insulted by a candidate thinking I'm so stupid I'd fall for that. But it seems to have worked with a lot of people. Got to give him credit for that.

Do you support Melania? What's really stupid is plagiarizing the previous First Lady's national convention speech and giving it at the national convention where your husband's being nominated.

 

[theprestige]

Back when the media was far less corrupt than today....Biden was exposed for lying and plagerizing by ABC, PBS, CBS, NBC, (.Sam Donaldson, Connie Chung, David Gergen etc.) and others.


Why support a known plagerizering liar?


Who remembers this footage?

I don't recall the footage, but I remember the last two times you posted this. Is everything okay?

 

[xjx388]

With the Jacob Wohl stuff popping up again, I'm curious how far your refusal to consider a history of making false claims goes. Assuming you're aware of them (if not we have a thread on them here), do you still automatically assume that each new false sexual assault allegation Wohl and Burkman fabricate is true? Do you get upset if other people take into account their past antics?

I have no problem attacking political operatives for trying to get people to fabricate allegations. These things are exposed quickly because the person who is the alleged victim says, “I never said that; the allegations are false.”

That’s a very different thing than what we have here.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Please note the highlighted. Your source gives the median salary for computer developers. A computer programmer is not a software developer . My median income was for programmers which is the job you specified.

I was using the layperson's terminology. For labor statistics, the title "computer programmer" is used to indicate a junior-level position. After the first few years, the person graduates to "programmer/analyst" or "software engineer" or "software developer".

No, it's not for 1st year programmers. If you'd bothered to read more carefully, you'd have noticed that my post clearly stated:

I know what it said, but the salary is more in line with what entry-level people make.

If you don't like the BLS claim, try here

https://appliedcomputing.wisconsin.edu/about-applied-computing/applied-computing-salary/

or even here (starting salaries for recent graduates)

https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/...ge-salary-for-class-of-2019-shows-large-gain/

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

How far do we take this idea?

Is a reputation for sleeping around ok to bring up? Is it ok to insinuate that an accuser’s mode of dress looks like an invitation? Is it ok to bring up that she’s a “party girl?”

To be clear, I don’t think any of that is ok to bring up when assessing a sexual assault claim. I’m trying to differentiate between stuff like that and other facets of an accuser’s life and personality such has been brought up with Reade.

OK. Since we can't make inferences about her credibility based on her history then we have to assume that her allegation is true. Similarly, we can't make inferences about Biden's credibility based on his history, so we have to assume that his denial is true.

I came to the conclusion that her claim is unlikely to be true before the Politico and NPR articles came out, actually, even before the story of her being charged with bouncing (or altering) checks came out.

 

[Stacyhs]

I was using the layperson's terminology. For labor statistics, the title "computer programmer" is used to indicate a junior-level position. After the first few years, the person graduates to "programmer/analyst" or "software engineer" or "software developer".

Uh huh....but no. You said programmer but then gave the salary for a developer. They are NOT the same thing nor are they paid the same. My husband and daughter are both developers. They both can code plus analyze and solve problems. Programmers CODE. My husband also manages both developers and programmers on his team. They do not do the same job.

When comparing a programmer vs developer, a software developer should be able to code as well as a programmer does but their main job is finding ways to solve problems. To do this, they need to figure out what those problems are and then figure out the technical framework for solving them. Programmers, on the other hand, are all about code.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=compu...s=n&sk=&cvid=9a063edb10d7484daf57dbe0943b1027


I know what it said, but the salary is more in line with what entry-level people make.

If you don't like the BLS claim, try here

https://appliedcomputing.wisconsin.edu/about-applied-computing/applied-computing-salary/

This does not mention the salary median for a programmer.

or even here (starting salaries for recent graduates)

https://www.naceweb.org/job-market/...ge-salary-for-class-of-2019-shows-large-gain/

Nor does this include programmer. It speaks only of "Computer and Information Sciences" which encompasses a broad range of jobs.

A computer programmer does not require a college degree. A computer developer requires a Bachelor of Science degree.

I suggest you stop doubling down.

 

[Bob001]

I'm not following all this business of programmers' salaries. I don't think it translates to other work.

Reade's dad was apparently a PR manager (not necessarily the top guy) for Honeywell in Minneapolis. He was hired from a job as a small-town newspaper sportswriter, and jobs at small papers are notoriously low-paid. If they had tripled his previous salary, even doubled it, he would have been glad to have it, and it would have created the opportunity for a comfortable life. But that's nowhere close to rich, even by corporate executive standards, let alone business tycoon standards.

But what does it matter? The real issue is that Reade accused her father of abusing her. Is there any evidence or support for that?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I was using the layperson's terminology. For labor statistics, the title "computer programmer" is used to indicate a junior-level position. After the first few years, the person graduates to "programmer/analyst" or "software engineer" or "software developer".

Uh huh....but no. You said programmer but then gave the salary for a developer. They are NOT the same thing nor are they paid the same. My husband and daughter are both developers. They both can code plus analyze and solve problems. Programmers CODE. My husband also manages both developers and programmers on his team. They do not do the same job.


https://www.bing.com/search?q=compu...s=n&sk=&cvid=9a063edb10d7484daf57dbe0943b1027


I know what it said, but the salary is more in line with what entry-level people make.



This does not mention the salary median for a programmer.




Nor does this include programmer. It speaks only of "Computer and Information Sciences" which encompasses a broad range of jobs.

A computer programmer does not require a college degree. A computer developer requires a Bachelor of Science degree.

I suggest you stop doubling down.

I probably should have mentioned in one of my posts that I was using "computer programmer" as a layperson would and not in the manner that it's used in the industry. And then explained that in the industry, "computer programmer" is an entry-level job title but that experienced people who do software development have titles like "programmer/analyst" or "software developer" or "software engineer".

 

[Bob001]

How far do we take this idea?

Is a reputation for sleeping around ok to bring up? Is it ok to insinuate that an accuser’s mode of dress looks like an invitation? Is it ok to bring up that she’s a “party girl?”

To be clear, I don’t think any of that is ok to bring up when assessing a sexual assault claim. I’m trying to differentiate between stuff like that and other facets of an accuser’s life and personality such has been brought up with Reade.

What she wears or how she behaves socially is irrelevant. What matters is her reputation for telling the truth. Someone with a proven history of lying or embellishing for her benefit is likely to keep lying when it suits her.

And I wouldn't ignore the bad check business. Employers frequently run credit checks on applicants, and a history of late payments -- let alone charge-offs and judgments -- would be seen as a level of irresponsibility that is disqualifying.

 

[wareyin]

I have no problem attacking political operatives for trying to get people to fabricate allegations. These things are exposed quickly because the person who is the alleged victim says, “I never said that; the allegations are false.”

That’s a very different thing than what we have here.

Not all of the people they contracted to claim to be victims came out right away and said the allegations are/were false. It took weeks of the very research you are denigrating here for one of their first allegations to fall through.

I agree that there are differences, Wohl and Burkman haven't been running their cons quite as long as Reade's victims say she has.

 

[theprestige]

What matters is her reputation for telling the truth.

I don't think that's a good idea. If she were a journalist, maybe. You'd consider her body of work before accepting an article that relies on anonymous sources for its claims. When John Carreyrou wrote his expose of Theranos, he used off the record sources to guide his investigation, but ultimately substantiated all of his key claims with actual evidence and on-the-record parties to the story. So I'll be inclined to trust his next expose. But I'd still expect him to come across with actual evidence at some point.

On the other hand, a rape allegation isn't the same thing. Nobody deserves to have their life ruined just because someone accused them of rape, and the best evidence is "well, she seems trustworthy, so it probably happened". No. That is not good justice. It's not even good social justice.

You're advocating for a world where the upper class twit, with his reputation sanitized by his entire class cohort, always wins over the victim he preys on exactly because they both know nobody will believe her over him.

 

[theprestige]

And I wouldn't ignore the bad check business. Employers frequently run credit checks on applicants, and a history of late payments -- let alone charge-offs and judgments -- would be seen as a level of irresponsibility that is disqualifying.

Heh. You're still arguing as if her claims are strong and additional reputational evidence is needed to refute them.

 

[Stacyhs]

I probably should have mentioned in one of my posts that I was using "computer programmer" as a layperson would and not in the manner that it's used in the industry. And then explained that in the industry, "computer programmer" is an entry-level job title but that experienced people who do software development have titles like "programmer/analyst" or "software developer" or "software engineer".

As I said, a programmer does not require a 4 year degree although most employers prefer a 4 year BS. Some only require a two year/IT tech degree. A software developer always requires a BS as does a Software Engineer. You cannot go into a job as a programmer without a BS degree and later become a developer or engineer without getting a BS degree in a related field.

A typical four-year curriculum includes study of computer programming, mathematics, and the software life cycle. An associate degree in IT or computer science can provide access to select entry-level jobs in this field, but a bachelor's degree is the standard minimum education requirement for software engineers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sof...2j69i57j0l5.6361j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think we've dissected this enough so I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion.

 

[wareyin]

Heh. You're still arguing as if her claims are strong and additional reputational evidence is needed to refute them.

No, he's pointing out that xjx388's desire to ignore that type of evidence is counter to how employers operate.

 

[Bob001]

I don't think that's a good idea. If she were a journalist, maybe. You'd consider her body of work before accepting an article that relies on anonymous sources for its claims.
.....

Not to digress too far, but you do understand that "off the record" sources are known to the journalist, and usually some of his/her editors, don't you? People talk to reporters off the record because they don't want to get fired, or worse. But off-the-record is not the same as anonymous. Most of the Watergate reporting, to take a classic example, was from off-the-record sources. But Woodstein sure knew who they were talking to, including the deputy FBI director.

 

[theprestige]

No, he's pointing out that xjx388's desire to ignore that type of evidence is counter to how employers operate.

Employers are examining the risk of partnership. We're examining whether a specific claim is true. Reputation can tell us about risk. It can't tell us whether a claim is true.

 

[Bob001]

.....
On the other hand, a rape allegation isn't the same thing. Nobody deserves to have their life ruined just because someone accused them of rape, and the best evidence is "well, she seems trustworthy, so it probably happened". No. That is not good justice. It's not even good social justice.
....

That would only be the starting point. If she seems credible, then you would look for supporting evidence of all kinds. The unsupported allegation by itself should not ruin anybody's life. On the other hand, if she has a history of lying and embellishing, it might be hard to look seriously for evidence.

 

[theprestige]

Not to digress too far, but you do understand that "off the record" sources are known to the journalist, and usually some of his/her editors, don't you? People talk to reporters off the record because they don't want to get fired, or worse. But off-the-record is not the same as anonymous. Most of the Watergate reporting, to take a classic example, was from off-the-record sources. But Woodstein sure knew who they were talking to, including the deputy FBI director.

Off the record is good for guiding a journalist's investigation of a story. But sooner or later he needs to substantiate his published claims with real evidence. He cannot ultimately rely on sources he does not corroborate and will not reveal.

I would not trust a reporter whose best evidence was his promise that he talked to a real person who really said what he claims they said. I would trust a reporter whose best evidence was actual, good evidence, even if he and his editor refused to reveal the identity of the source that put them onto it.

 

[theprestige]

That would only be the starting point. If she seems credible, then you would look for supporting evidence of all kinds. The unsupported allegation by itself should not ruin anybody's life. On the other hand, if she has a history of lying and embellishing, it might be hard to look seriously for evidence.

It might be hard because humans are flawed creatures, prone to fallacious reasoning. I'm not sure why you're defending that as a standard of inquiry. Hopefully you would strongly disapprove of a police detective who let his personal opinion of the accuser get in the way of his due diligence.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think that's a good idea. If she were a journalist, maybe. You'd consider her body of work before accepting an article that relies on anonymous sources for its claims. When John Carreyrou wrote his expose of Theranos, he used off the record sources to guide his investigation, but ultimately substantiated all of his key claims with actual evidence and on-the-record parties to the story. So I'll be inclined to trust his next expose. But I'd still expect him to come across with actual evidence at some point.

On the other hand, a rape allegation isn't the same thing. Nobody deserves to have their life ruined just because someone accused them of rape, and the best evidence is "well, she seems trustworthy, so it probably happened". No. That is not good justice. It's not even good social justice.

Yes, you keep telling us that a person's lengthy and substantial history of lying shouldn't affect how we assess if s/he's a liar or not. I guess I shouldn't consider talking to patients for their opinions on their surgeon's work before considering him/her to do my surgery.

Whether you think we should or not doesn't matter. The fact is that people DO consider a person's reputation for honesty when assessing their credibility and they do so for a very good reason: People have a pattern of behavior that they do not tend to deviate from. Thus the saying that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

You're advocating for a world where the upper class twit, with his reputation sanitized by his entire class cohort, always wins over the victim he preys on exactly because they both know nobody will believe her over him.

Nonsense. No one is 'advocating' for any such thing.