Being a white guy is awesome. Let's tell stories about awesome things that happened purely because of our skin color!

[Metaphor]

I believe things based on evidence, and doubt them if there is no evidence or counterevidence.

But since, by your own admission, you did very well academically at university, I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me your SAT results were indeed a very good predictor of your academic potential and this is a good argument to keep the SAT and possibly increase its weighting.

I was mostly referring to your opinions of my math ability.

The truth is that I was just good at taking tests. Some people are not good at taking tests. Not reflective of knowledge or skill. I know enough truly bright people to know that my test scores were....generous.

No, that isn't the truth. If that were the truth, then test results wouldn't correlate with anything meaningful, but they do, and a test is often the best single predictor of performance. That's why universities in America use the SAT and weight it heavily. That's why it is totally unsurprising that, having done well on the SATs you also did well at university.

In fact, it's quite an insult to test designers for you to imagine their tests measure nothing but 'test taking ability'. I can only imagine your statement is not meant to be a malicious dismissal, but merely reflects your nearly wholesale statistical and psychometric ignorance.

 

[Smoker]

I'm a white guy, and I often think about what would have happened to me if I had behaved the same way in my life with different colored skin. I'm guessing I probably would have gone to prison at least once in my life if I had been born black or hispanic. Here's one example.

One time when I was about 17, my friends and I had just purchased a pound of marijuana and we were transporting it back to my friend's house in my piece of crap Ford Mustang when my car broke down next to the highway. Luckily I had enough time to pull into a parking lot before we were stuck on the side of the highway. We were smoking two joints while we were trying to figure out what was wrong with the car, because that's what you do when you have a pound of weed. Suddenly a cop car shows up out of nowhere, and it's driving right towards us. My friends quickly throw the joints on the ground and put them out by stepping on them. We're all quietly praying that the cop doesn't smell anything or search the car. The cop gets out of his car and actually seems to be trying to figure out what is wrong with my engine and trying to help us. My friends and I are expecting to get screwed because as teenagers we are used to being continually harassed by Texas cops.

But he leaves us alone and drives away. It's hard for me to imagine that he didn't smell the weed smoke all over us or the fresh pound of it in my car. Only one out of four friends with me at the time wasn't white, and I would bet money that the cop would have searched a little harder if most of us hadn't been white. That much weed would have been a felony charge, and my life would have been a lot different if he had arrested me for it.

 

[Toni]

I was mostly referring to your opinions of my math ability.

The truth is that I was just good at taking tests. Some people are not good at taking tests. Not reflective of knowledge or skill. I know enough truly bright people to know that my test scores were....generous.

No, that isn't the truth. If that were the truth, then test results wouldn't correlate with anything meaningful, but they do, and a test is often the best single predictor of performance. That's why universities in America use the SAT and weight it heavily. That's why it is totally unsurprising that, having done well on the SATs you also did well at university.

In fact, it's quite an insult to test designers for you to imagine their tests measure nothing but 'test taking ability'. I can only imagine your statement is not meant to be a malicious dismissal, but merely reflects your nearly wholesale statistical and psychometric ignorance.

Of course it is the truth as far as I go. I know very well just about how smart I am, IQ, blah blah blah. I'm not being falsely modest here.

Some universities use the SAT; others use the ACT. Which test is preferred is almost entirely regional. Some universities will accept either. There are plenty of universities who are looking at dumping the SAT altogether and more who are making it optional. It isn't as good a predictor as it used to be believed to be. There are a lot of articles about this all over the internet.

Here are two student profiles which I know to be very accurate.

Student A comes from an upper middle class family, attends a small but well regarded public high school in a major metropolitan area, has well educated parents, including one parent with an advanced degree. A has mediocre high school grades and scores decently well on the SATs and is admitted to A's first choice university, which is a public state university of decent rankings. A is uncertain of career goals or of an intended major when A enrolls.

Student B comes from a lower middle class family whose parents did not attend school beyond high school and lives in a small town and attends a small high school there where B graduates top of the class, outscores A on the SATs by 9 percent on the math portion and has nearly identical verbal scores. B is admitted to and attends the exact same university as A during the same time period. B is a driven student with clear cut educational and career goals and is fairly certain of which major to choose and is considering a double major, with plans to go to graduate school or a professional school.

Which student graduates with almost a 4.0 in 4 years and is admitted to graduate school and earns a Ph.D?

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it is the truth as far as I go. I know very well just about how smart I am, IQ, blah blah blah. I'm not being falsely modest here.

No, it isn’t the truth. It’s true that part of the variability in test outcomes are due to test-taking acumen, and it is true that test-taking acumen differs between individuals, but to say that ‘all my results are due to my test-taking acumen and reflect nothing else’ is to convey ignorance of tests.

Some universities use the SAT; others use the ACT. Which test is preferred is almost entirely regional. Some universities will accept either. There are plenty of universities who are looking at dumping the SAT altogether and more who are making it optional. It isn't as good a predictor as it used to be believed to be. There are a lot of articles about this all over the internet.

Your dogmatic response to tests is not just about the SAT. You initially imagined the New Haven firefighter tests to not be any good and imagined that’s why the results were thrown out.

Here are two student profiles which I know to be very accurate.

Student A comes from an upper middle class family, attends a small but well regarded public high school in a major metropolitan area, has well educated parents, including one parent with an advanced degree. A has mediocre high school grades and scores decently well on the SATs and is admitted to A's first choice university, which is a public state university of decent rankings. A is uncertain of career goals or of an intended major when A enrolls.

Student B comes from a lower middle class family whose parents did not attend school beyond high school and lives in a small town and attends a small high school there where B graduates top of the class, outscores A on the SATs by 9 percent on the math portion and has nearly identical verbal scores. B is admitted to and attends the exact same university as A during the same time period. B is a driven student with clear cut educational and career goals and is fairly certain of which major to choose and is considering a double major, with plans to go to graduate school or a professional school.

Which student graduates with almost a 4.0 in 4 years and is admitted to graduate school and earns a Ph.D?

I have no idea, and it’s a silly question to ask. The SATs alone aren’t going to predict 100% of the variation in academic performance and nobody claims they do. Student A could turn out to be a drug addict which is a serious barrier to academic achievement. Student B could get killed in a car accident which is also a serious barrier to academic achievement.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't know. I'd wager most people's interactions with police are during random breath tests (RBTs) on the road.

Really?
I've been driving since I was 14 and haven't been breathalyzed once.
I've been pulled over for speeding, for expired tags and for driving in a lane that wasn't actually a lane but never a random car stop.
Just how frequent are these things?

Apparently they do it a bit differently down under. I have been stopped at sobriety checkpoints here in Illinois, usually it is when crossing the river from Missouri. The clubs in East St. Louis stay open 24/7, but the clubs in St. Louis close at 2am. As a result there are often checkpoints at that time of night. In the past, I have worked shifts that had me driving home at the same time, crossing the river. They don't give everyone the breathalyzer test, though. First they have you roll down your window, and take a quick look inside the vehicle, and a good smell. If they see or smell any reason for suspicion, they then have you pull to the side for a breathalyzer, and/or a search of your vehicle. I have never had to pull aside, I was always waved through.

It's odd for me, as I have long hair, and often wear a beard, so usually any time I am pulled over, I get to spend a half hour alongside the road while my vehicle is searched, or a drug dog called out to sniff around.

 

[Toni]

Your dogmatic response to tests is not just about the SAT. You initially imagined the New Haven firefighter tests to not be any good and imagined that’s why the results were thrown out.

No, you are being dogmatic in your adherence to the assumption that SATs are reliable predictors of future academic success. It isn't just me who is skeptical but many universities over a long period of time. Because they are finding that SATs are not good predictors of future academic success. Don't you think that universities would love to know who will flourish and who will struggle? Please do a little Internet research for a more detailed analysis of the reliability of the SAT.

As for the firefighters exam, I actually did not comment about how good the exam was or was not. Instead I pointed out the arguments being made against using the test for promotions. In that particular case, the fire department was trying very hard to do the right thing, and selected a tool that they felt perhaps did not do as good a job as they had hoped. Teachers often question the tests they write when students perform much better or much worse than expected. It's not strange of out of the ordinary or nefarious.

I have no idea, and it’s a silly question to ask. The SATs alone aren’t going to predict 100% of the variation in academic performance and nobody claims they do. Student A could turn out to be a drug addict which is a serious barrier to academic achievement. Student B could get killed in a car accident which is also a serious barrier to academic achievement.

Both students enjoy excellent health and have no substance abuse issues. Neither sustains any injuries, etc.

 

[ksen]

I got to marry a hot arabian chick since she dug my milky white privilege/hotness.

 

[dismal]

I got to marry a hot arabian chick since she dug my milky white privilege/hotness.

Sounds like cultural appropriation to me.

 

[ksen]

oh yeah

 

[ronburgundy]

You taught completely separate subjects that very likely have different numbers of applicants willing and minimally able to teach those subjects. That impacts offered pay. The odds are at least 50/50 that English was harder to find instructors for than math, and likely higher than that given you were in Silicon Valley.



What % of other male "attendees" were wearing a suit at this Sander's rally? How do you distinguish between the effect of the suit by itself and the effect of your race?.
Note, I said males wearing a "suit" because what counts as a female "suit" is much fuzzier. The boundaries of professional attire is far narrower for men, and these days few men wear them outside of either very formal social occasions or when performing official professional duties. What women wear during such occasions is far more variable and far less easily distinguishable from what many women wear outside of those occasions.
IOW, from a simple objective probability standpoint, you suit was a reasonable signal that you were in fact serving a higher level professional role at the event.

A fun one! In China I once got stuck for 30 minutes in front of a statue of Mao because a veritable horde of college students wanted to take photo's with me. Being white is pretty great!

That doesn't sound "great" at all, but even it was related to you being white, it was being white in a context without many white people. IOW, it was being a racial minority. Not really the same as the point you are making. Also, maybe they just mistook you for a famous white person. After all, Asians can be very racist

This is the problem with anecdotes of racial injustice or privilege. They presume a particular cause in contexts where other causes are not merely possible, but extremely likely.
The fact that none of your examples are likely to be instances of white privilege doesn't mean that on average whites don't get more advantageous presumptions triggered by their race. Just that the evidence for that has to come from systematic data.

Psychology is not a subject area covered by the SAT.

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

I've lived a lot of places but nowhere it was difficult to find an English major. Math majors? Not so much. Since math was the subject his Asian friend majored in, it seems like she'd be more valued.

Also, mathematics is a major area covered by the SAT I as well as SAT II. Psychology is not covered at all. You would think there would be close to ZERO market for psychology majors teaching SAT courses. Certainly not that psychology majors would be paid more than math majors.

Try to actually comprehend the OP or my post. The OP taught a course the English section of the SAT and was paid more than a person teaching the Match section. The reason they hired a person with a Psych degree to teach English is likely that they were desperate for anyone willing, college Educated, and fluent in English to teach the course, which is the same reason they would pay that instructor more than Math instructor.

The OP amounts to "I bought an apple and paid 40 cents, while the women behind me bought an orange and paid 60 cents. Wow, that store is sexist!!"

 

[ronburgundy]

Amy's students were my students. You don't pick and choose which classes to take at an SAT boot camp. The application process wasn't open and I didn't have anyone else competing for my slot.

Well, there you go. You had no competition for you job. That drives up wages. Had 100 people clamored for that job, they would have paid less, because they could.

What % of other male "attendees" were wearing a suit at this Sander's rally? How do you distinguish between the effect of the suit by itself and the effect of your race?.
Note, I said males wearing a "suit" because what counts as a female "suit" is much fuzzier. The boundaries of professional attire is far narrower for men, and these days few men wear them outside of either very formal social occasions or when performing official professional duties. What women wear during such occasions is far more variable and far less easily distinguishable from what many women wear outside of those occasions.
IOW, from a simple objective probability standpoint, you suit was a reasonable signal that you were in fact serving a higher level professional role at the event.

~10% of the male population was wearing formal wear and yes, harder to say for women.

Did I forget to mention that employees on the campaign made the same mistake?

Oh, and that was all intentional. The way I dressed and groomed myself was to give the impression of legitimacy, a legitimacy that I could only do so because of the stereotypes that our society has that you just laid out!

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

A fun one! In China I once got stuck for 30 minutes in front of a statue of Mao because a veritable horde of college students wanted to take photo's with me. Being white is pretty great!

That doesn't sound "great" at all, but even it was related to you being white, it was being white in a context without many white people. IOW, it was being a racial minority. Not really the same as the point you are making. Also, maybe they just mistook you for a famous white person. After all, Asians can be very racist

This is the problem with anecdotes of racial injustice or privilege. They presume a particular cause in contexts where other causes are not merely possible, but extremely likely.
The fact that none of your examples are likely to be instances of white privilege doesn't mean that on average whites don't get more advantageous presumptions triggered by their race. Just that the evidence for that has to come from systematic data.

It would have sounded more fun, but I intentionally made all my stories short to the point of not being fun I just wanted to include it for laughs.

And there was definately racism in China too. Holy shit the anti-Japan sentiments are pretty strong still. I once saw a bar with no less than a dozen signs in various languages saying they wouldn't serve anyone Japanese. Not sure how someone from Japan would get to the Hunan province, but nobody ever explains how Sharia law is coming to Texas so I chocked it up to the same silly sentiment.

Okay, so are you aware that you just admitted that all 3 of your tales of white male privilege had nothing to do with white privilege or male privilege.

 

[laughing dog]

Try to actually comprehend the OP or my post. The OP taught a course the English section of the SAT and was paid more than a person teaching the Match section. The reason they hired a person with a Psych degree to teach English is likely that they were desperate for anyone willing, college Educated, and fluent in English to teach the course, which is the same reason they would pay that instructor more than Math instructor.

The OP amounts to "I bought an apple and paid 40 cents, while the women behind me bought an orange and paid 60 cents. Wow, that store is sexist!!"

Once you introduced "is likely" without any factual basis, your explanation amounts to "I made up my story". Why should anyone believe your explanation is more likely than the person who originally told the story?

 

[Jaecp]

She had a degree in the field she was teaching. I didn't. That's the important part. In every criteria, she beat me.

I was offered a certain amount, did not negotiate but could have if I had chosen to

We weren't tutors, we each had classes of 15-30 students. The area taught didn't matter, especially since STEM stuff like Math tends to command a higher salary than the Humanities, which is what I was teaching. But no, there was no bounty for teaching a different subject. There's only 3 on the SAT, after all.

As for what determined it? Who knows, but somehow the asian women with a more fitting degree teaching the harder subject got paid less than me. I didn't know anyone elses salary. I only know Amy's because I mentioned it offhand to the person who told me to apply for the job and she was livid that I was getting paid more than her sister in law for the reasons I've given

If you have evidence that race was a determinant in the wage differential, then you or Amy should confront the academy.

If you don't have evidence that race was a determinant, I would not use this anecdote as an example of getting paid more because you're white.

I both have evidence, and didn't go to the academy. Any action, if it was taken, was taken by Celia on Amy's behalf as she was 3rd in command.

Well, there you go. You had no competition for you job. That drives up wages. Had 100 people clamored for that job, they would have paid less, because they could.

It wasn't just me because nobody else would have applied, but that I (and amy) got hired on before the rest of the positions were posted publicly. The competition angle here doesn't work.

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

My gender had everything to do with it. I literally described how I played into stereotypes to make myself look more important than I actually was. Women in business wear at the event did not get the same benefit. That it is gender + something else doesn't discount that gender played a role.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well, there you go. You had no competition for you job. That drives up wages. Had 100 people clamored for that job, they would have paid less, because they could.

It wasn't just me because nobody else would have applied, but that I (and amy) got hired on before the rest of the positions were posted publicly. The competition angle here doesn't work.

It works just fine. The academy would have knowledge to estimate the market value of those instructor positions, such as the applicant responses from prior years or knowledge of what other SAT academies pay for those different jobs. The key is that are different jobs and thus there is no reason to think they would pay the same. So, you would need clear evidence that the academy pays math instructors the same or more any time that instructor is a white male for it to be even plausible that race or gender were factors.

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

My gender had everything to do with it. I literally described how I played into stereotypes to make myself look more important than I actually was. Women in business wear at the event did not get the same benefit. That it is gender + something else doesn't discount that gender played a role.

You described how you put on specific attire that you know has high association with authority within that generally informal context where few not in authority would be wearing that attire. That association of suits to authority is not just a "stereotype" but an empirical reality. The attire is what caused on the responses your got. The role of gender is indirect and due to female privileges not given to men. There is no female attire that has nearly that empirically based association with authority because women are given far more freedom than men in what attire they can wear at the workplace to appear professional and outside the workplace without appearing oddly out of place an overdressed. Thus, the categories of professional attire and informal attire are not as empirically distinct for women, because they have more liberties to choose within each of those contexts.

Also, since there is no plausible way that you would know what every person at a rally did or did not say to every woman in the vague category of "business wear", your claim to have such supernatural omniscience shows you are just making up these "experiences" to fit the ideological conclusion you want to make.

 

[Toni]

It wasn't just me because nobody else would have applied, but that I (and amy) got hired on before the rest of the positions were posted publicly. The competition angle here doesn't work.

It works just fine. The academy would have knowledge to estimate the market value of those instructor positions, such as the applicant responses from prior years or knowledge of what other SAT academies pay for those different jobs. The key is that are different jobs and thus there is no reason to think they would pay the same. So, you would need clear evidence that the academy pays math instructors the same or more any time that instructor is a white male for it to be even plausible that race or gender were factors.

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

My gender had everything to do with it. I literally described how I played into stereotypes to make myself look more important than I actually was. Women in business wear at the event did not get the same benefit. That it is gender + something else doesn't discount that gender played a role.

You described how you put on specific attire that you know has high association with authority within that generally informal context where few not in authority would be wearing that attire. That association of suits to authority is not just a "stereotype" but an empirical reality. The attire is what caused on the responses your got. The role of gender is indirect and due to female privileges not given to men. There is no female attire that has nearly that empirically based association with authority because women are given far more freedom than men in what attire they can wear at the workplace to appear professional and outside the workplace without appearing oddly out of place an overdressed. Thus, the categories of professional attire and informal attire are not as empirically distinct for women, because they have more liberties to choose within each of those contexts.

Also, since there is no plausible way that you would know what every person at a rally did or did not say to every woman in the vague category of "business wear", your claim to have such supernatural omniscience shows you are just making up these "experiences" to fit the ideological conclusion you want to make.

Oh please. Your obvious biases are outshining any point you hoped to make.

 

[ronburgundy]

It works just fine. The academy would have knowledge to estimate the market value of those instructor positions, such as the applicant responses from prior years or knowledge of what other SAT academies pay for those different jobs. The key is that are different jobs and thus there is no reason to think they would pay the same. So, you would need clear evidence that the academy pays math instructors the same or more any time that instructor is a white male for it to be even plausible that race or gender were factors.

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

My gender had everything to do with it. I literally described how I played into stereotypes to make myself look more important than I actually was. Women in business wear at the event did not get the same benefit. That it is gender + something else doesn't discount that gender played a role.

You described how you put on specific attire that you know has high association with authority within that generally informal context where few not in authority would be wearing that attire. That association of suits to authority is not just a "stereotype" but an empirical reality. The attire is what caused on the responses your got. The role of gender is indirect and due to female privileges not given to men. There is no female attire that has nearly that empirically based association with authority because women are given far more freedom than men in what attire they can wear at the workplace to appear professional and outside the workplace without appearing oddly out of place an overdressed. Thus, the categories of professional attire and informal attire are not as empirically distinct for women, because they have more liberties to choose within each of those contexts.

Also, since there is no plausible way that you would know what every person at a rally did or did not say to every woman in the vague category of "business wear", your claim to have such supernatural omniscience shows you are just making up these "experiences" to fit the ideological conclusion you want to make.

Oh please. Your obvious biases are outshining any point you hoped to make.

As is common among the faithful, you are confusing my refusal to share your blinding ideological presumptions with a counter-bias.
It is akin to how creationists accuse evolutionary biologists of an atheistic bias.

 

[laughing dog]

As is common among the faithful, you are confusing my refusal to share your blinding ideological presumptions with a counter-bias.

There is no confusion. You literally make up an explanation without any factual basis and proclaim it to be valid. You are the creationist in this discussion.

 

[Rhea]

Not male, but...

At a conference in Detroit I was standing in line to check in to the upscale hotel. There was only one person ahead of me in the line, a young man (my age) in suit (like me) who was black (I'm white). The person at one of the counter stations finishes and leaves and the clerk looks right at me, points to me, and says, "may I help you?"

I look at the black guy in front of me. He does one of those inhale-through-the-nose-while-looking straight ahead-for-forbearance asanas that one does when one decides to not die for yet another hill. I couldn't believe it. I'd have made a bigger response if I hadn't been so shocked. Instead I just looked (I'm sure) completely perplexed and pointed at him, "he's here first." She turned to him like she had only just noticed that he existed. And with a tolerant-sounding "sir?" invited him to her window, like, "well, she has given you her spot. I will comply."

 

[Toni]

It works just fine. The academy would have knowledge to estimate the market value of those instructor positions, such as the applicant responses from prior years or knowledge of what other SAT academies pay for those different jobs. The key is that are different jobs and thus there is no reason to think they would pay the same. So, you would need clear evidence that the academy pays math instructors the same or more any time that instructor is a white male for it to be even plausible that race or gender were factors.

Great. So, you now realize that your gender had nothing to do with it. You intentionally played upon the widespread associations people have between suits and authority, and people responded to your attire (not your gender) just as you planned. There is nothing more to it than that.

My gender had everything to do with it. I literally described how I played into stereotypes to make myself look more important than I actually was. Women in business wear at the event did not get the same benefit. That it is gender + something else doesn't discount that gender played a role.

You described how you put on specific attire that you know has high association with authority within that generally informal context where few not in authority would be wearing that attire. That association of suits to authority is not just a "stereotype" but an empirical reality. The attire is what caused on the responses your got. The role of gender is indirect and due to female privileges not given to men. There is no female attire that has nearly that empirically based association with authority because women are given far more freedom than men in what attire they can wear at the workplace to appear professional and outside the workplace without appearing oddly out of place an overdressed. Thus, the categories of professional attire and informal attire are not as empirically distinct for women, because they have more liberties to choose within each of those contexts.

Also, since there is no plausible way that you would know what every person at a rally did or did not say to every woman in the vague category of "business wear", your claim to have such supernatural omniscience shows you are just making up these "experiences" to fit the ideological conclusion you want to make.

Oh please. Your obvious biases are outshining any point you hoped to make.

As is common among the faithful, you are confusing my refusal to share your blinding ideological presumptions with a counter-bias.
It is akin to how creationists accuse evolutionary biologists of an atheistic bias.

You wish.

 

[Jaecp]

Yeah, Ron, you're making a bunch of unwarranted assumptions to justify a rejection of what is well known. White people have it easier in America. The academy would know? Why? This branch had been open for 2 years. The jobs would pay differently? No. Teaching pay is between 20-30 dollars for that position, depending on experience. The school doesn't have different listings, just "teacher." My teaching experience is more or less equal to what Amy has done (my only experience as a teacher is a TA for a Statistics class). As for evidence? The person who referred me to the position was LIVID when she found out I was making more per hour than Amy. She'd assumed we were getting paid the same. Celia, presumably, as the 3rd in charge at the school then went to talk to #1 because she was mad. Celia is now in the #2 spot of a different school in the same company.

The one with my attire is arguable, but it is a fact that I was able to "Hack" the brains of people around me by playing into existing stereotypes, which include my gender. As someone said a few pages ago: "The only thing better than being white and male in American is being white, male and in a suit in America." So what if there are no ways for women to do this? That is the point! And no, suits being authority are a stereotype. I don't have a job right now, I'm looking for a political campaign to manage. Me in a suit is giving the appearance of class that doesn't exist. As for having no plausible way to know everything? Sure? Was it not obvious that I was talking about what I saw (over the course of the 8 hours I was there)? Don't play at "disproving" me by taking an unrealistic interpretation of my words. There's a word for that already and you know better