<p>^ I think you’re reading too much into motive for posting an informative link… just because it didn’t live up to your hopes doesn’t mean he was being devious. ;)</p>
<p>Drax, enough of this non-sense. </p>
<p>You have now gone from complaining about my “hyper-sensitive” defense of Stanford to accusing me of having a hidden agenda, all the while adding a number of ad hominems. </p>
<p>I told you that how your original interpretation of my post was erroneous. Do I really have to start adding a diagram to my posts for you to understand them better? If that is the case, here it is. First of all, note how there is a hard return between the first sentence that addressed the quotations and the link to the Stanford newspaper. The first statement was an answer to your post and was made based on direct and personal knowledge of the issues. That first sentence was not an introduction to the link. The link was presented as a viewpoint worth … reading, and not as a rebuttal. Again, your faulty assumption was your problem. </p>
<p>When you came back with your “care to share” I responded with links about the issues I raised in my original reply, namely the quotations having been obtained under false pretenses and taken out of their original context. Pretty straightforward, as far as I know. I really do not know how to make any of this clearer to you. Well, except for reminding you that the basic element of reading comprehension is to focus on what is written, and not add your own whimsical interpretations.</p>
<p>The king of the angry posting, replete with ad hominems, calling other people out. Incredible…</p>
<p>“whimsical interpretations”? What are these? That you’re a ‘fanboi’ of Stanford as some of us are fanbois of public u’s? Why else would you post that link?</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is you’re also a fanboi of UT-Austin. Your defense of that school, which doesn’t need defending, was humorous, waaaaaay out of left field. So don’t tell me of whimisical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in a devious bait-and-switch business sense, no. But ‘live up to your hopes’ - I don’t know what you mean. I was hoping for a savings in time, instead of reading accusations with no basis no link. </p>
<p>And I still don’t know what he meant by ‘quotes obtained from false pretenses.’ I know about the alleged misquote, but did the journalists supposedly misrepresent themselves?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you for real? Do you need detailed explanations on how to click on a link and … a full explanation on how to interpret the words for you … to understand? While you seem to go through great lengths to find faults in the simplest of statements, you also seem to have the greatest difficulties in reading the actual contents of linked text. </p>
<p>Is there any doubt about Dr. Barr meant when he wrote
Was it unclear to you what Ryan Sudeck meant when he wrote
</p>
<p>And what did I write about false pretenses and misquotations? </p>
<p>Oh well! I tried.</p>
<p>Get your time-line elements correct, please. These, your selective quotes of mine, were my initial thoughts after you extended our converation past my initial post… further posting, of which I had no intention of doing. Stanford is neither hurt or damaged by this story.</p>
<p>You have a distinct propensity towards drawing things out. I’ve run into the same problems with you before, when I asked you to explain things intially so as to not have to extend these threads. I had no intention of linking to your stories any more, neither then - nor now. </p>
<p>I’m sure not everyone has the same time availability as you do. But you have to remember that we can’t all read in detail all the links provided on these boards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do? </p>
<p>Without your requests for “proof” or links" and allegations of “hidden agenda” and “bait and switch” all that I needed to say would have been confined to a simple sentence, namely “There are several unfortunate elements in this story, starting with the unreported fact that most of the quotes were obtained under false pretenses, and as it has become standard for this type of story, taken out of their context.”</p>
<p>… trying to get someone else’s opinion, say, phantasmagoric, who seems to be somehow affiliated with the u, say, anyone, but all I see is your mug… figuratively speaking.</p>
<p>I don’t have a lot of interest in this, obviously opposite to your passion towards the subject, so I’ll just wait until all the facts come out wrt the student reporters and those allegedly misquoted or quoted off record.</p>
<p>Thanks for playing.</p>