Princeton confesses its embedded racism; Education Dept reviews its compliance with the law

[laughing dog]

Not another "My interpretation is the only correct one".

KeepTalking flat out called my understanding wrong.

How do you read the college president response letter? Do you think it's unreasonable to describe it as closing ranks? Do you think that they are not calling out the ED by emphasizing their unity on 'acknowledging racism'?

They are clearly calling out the DOE for its wasting its efforts and resources. I think it is a real stretch that they are daring or inviting investigation by the DOE.

 

[KeepTalking]

Not another "My interpretation is the only correct one".

KeepTalking flat out called my understanding wrong.

FFS, no I didn't!

Yet another example of your shitty interpretation skills, and that is me being charitable.

How do you read the college president response letter? Do you think it's unreasonable to describe it as closing ranks? Do you think that they are not calling out the ED by emphasizing their unity on 'acknowledging racism'?

I didn't take issue with your describing it as closing ranks, they are definitely standing united with Princeton in wanting to draw attention to the racism that still exists throughout the Country, including on University campuses. I took issue with the letter making any kind of challenge to the DoEd to investigate all of them. It doesn't say anything of the sort, it has to be squinted at from the correct perspective to be interpreted that way, and your shitty interpretation skills are already noted.

 

[Metaphor]

FFS, no I didn't!

Yes, you did. You said: Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Saying the letter does not contain what I think it contains is saying I was wrong about the letter.

I took issue with the letter making any kind of challenge to the DoEd to investigate all of them. It doesn't say anything of the sort, it has to be squinted at from the correct perspective to be interpreted that way, and your shitty interpretation skills are already noted.

Wait. I want to get this right.

You never said my interpretation was wrong, apparently, but yet the letter contains 'nothing of the sort' of the interpretation I gave?

 

[KeepTalking]

FFS, no I didn't!

Yes, you did. You said: Oh FFS, the letter contains nothing of the sort.

Saying the letter does not contain what I think it contains is saying I was wrong about the letter.

You said I "flat out called" your understanding wrong. Since my post did not mention that your understanding was wrong, I did not "flat out" say that. You provided an interpretation of what I said, and it was not the only possible interpretation of what I said, as there is at least one less charitable way of interpreting what I said.

I took issue with the letter making any kind of challenge to the DoEd to investigate all of them. It doesn't say anything of the sort, it has to be squinted at from the correct perspective to be interpreted that way, and your shitty interpretation skills are already noted.

Wait. I want to get this right.

You never said my interpretation was wrong, apparently,

Yet another error on your part with regard to recalling our conversation. I never said your "understanding" was wrong in a particular context. I am quite aware that your interpretations of the words other people say are often wrong. It is why I have often encouraged you to quote me directly, and to stop putting words in my mouth.

but yet the letter contains 'nothing of the sort' of the interpretation I gave?

Such a statement can be true regardless of whether your understanding is correct, and makes no determination on your understanding of the letter.