That is seriously crazy talk. And what's up with NY law that forcible anal penetration doesn't count as rape -- just ""penetration, however slight" of the vagina by a penis."?
I can't think of when I've felt that hostile toward a juror, just for being stupid. If you read the story, they found the rapist guilty of sexual assault -- the doubtful issue was only if he actually penetrated the woman. At which point the stated reasoning makes no sense at all -- ...
The stated reason and real reason are often different. Perhaps for whatever reason the juror was looking for an excuse to acquit. She might have held out on the other counts as well if it had not been for the DNA evidence.
1
... And what's up with NY law that forcible anal penetration doesn't count as rape -- just ""penetration, however slight" of the vagina by a penis."?
It makes sense to me to distinguish sexual assaults that can result in pregnancy.
Ever read a comment on a youtube video, or on an article on your local newspaper's website? The people who write those get selected for jury duty, too.
3: OK, so I'll bite: it's not clear to me how being anally raped would be less traumatic and/or wrong and/or illegal than being otherwise raped in some manner that _might_ result in pregnancy. Thus, not sure why they should be differentiated. Arguably, risk of HIV maybe greater during forcible anal penetration. Also, men can be raped, but cannot get pregnant.
I haven't looked at the legislative history, but my guess as to the reason for the distinction is simple archaism: I'd assume the distinction was made decades ago, when it would have been more conventional to distinguish sharply between penis-in-vagina rape and other forms of sexual assault. If the penalties are comparable, which they seem to be (both are Class B felonies), the verbal distinction in the statute doesn't bother me much.
7
3: OK, so I'll bite: it's not clear to me how being anally raped would be less traumatic and/or wrong and/or illegal than being otherwise raped in some manner that _might_ result in pregnancy. ...
Seems obvious to me that being forcibly impregnated is different than other assaults.
You don't think a rape resulting in pregnancy is more traumatic than one that doesn't?
9: oh yes, that's the historical rationale, and it's probably not worth changing if the penalties are the same. But if you were starting from scratch....
11: Following that logic, you'd want a different crime and penalty for raping an infertile woman, which really doesn't make a lot of sense. To put it mildly: "Your honor, I didn't have the mens rea for real rape, I thought she was over fifty. It would be unjust to give me the full sentence just because it turns out she was thirty-five but had spent a lot of time in the sun."
If the idea of changing the level of criminality on the basis of the fertility of the victim doesn't accord with your intuition, then distinguishing between PIV rape and anal rape shouldn't as well. If it does accord with your intuition, I guess we can chalk up another point of fundamental disagreement.
It would be unjust to give me the full sentence just because it turns out she was thirty-five but had spent a lot of time in the sun.
Ah, the Jimmy Buffett defense.
Making fine distinctions regarding gross conduct is a mug's game. (Which is worse, forced anal or vaginal penetration? Santorum or Gingrich? Hitler or Stalin?)
So I think the distinction drawn by James (and the law) is unhelpful, but I don't think the effect is to trivialize certain kinds of rape.
13
11: Following that logic, you'd want a different crime and penalty for raping an infertile woman, which really doesn't make a lot of sense. To put it mildly: "Your honor, I didn't have the mens rea for real rape, I thought she was over fifty. It would be unjust to give me the full sentence just because it turns out she was thirty-five but had spent a lot of time in the sun."
This is silly, crimes should be defined with straightforward bright line rules. And to ease prosecution it makes sense to have these rules include borderline cases particularly when these don't include socially valuable actions.
So for instance the NJ law (if the signs in a store I patronize are to be believed) against concealing on your person items that you haven't paid for.
what the guy was convicted of is enough to put him away for a very long time
Not as long as non-violent environmental activist "Green Scare" political prisoners like Eric McDavid and Marie Mason though.
16
Or rules requiring everyone to present ID when buying alcohol.
... but given the context it makes no sense even on its own terms.
A little caution is in order given the hostile intermediary. Given that for whatever reason after listening to her testimony a juror decided the victim was not a totally reliable witness only convicting on counts for which there was independent forensic evidence makes some sense.
No thanks, I've already had some.
I'm not going to spend any time on this, but I would be surprised if the possibility of pregnancy loomed larger in the history of having a distinction between rape and forcible sodomy than the obvious patriarchal point: rape takes something precious from a man (husband or father), and that something is different from what is taken from him by the forcible sodomy of his wife or daughter. Or his son or self.
Unanimity is problematic. There are just too many irrational people out there.
I would be surprised if the possibility of pregnancy loomed larger in the history of having a distinction between rape and forcible sodomy than the obvious patriarchal point: rape takes something precious from a man (husband or father), and that something is different from what is taken from him by the forcible sodomy of his wife or daughter. Or his son or self.
I would say that the possibility of pregnancy is in fact an important part of this distinction from the patriarchal perspective.
14 -- Right. An element of the thing, and not the thing itself.
26: nuh uh. I think it is clear that you were referring to Jimmy Buffett's classic song "Necessary But Not Sufficientville".
7: Do you think that it should be distinguished clearly from other kinds of assault/battery that have a superficially similar severity?
23 -- Incarceration for long periods is pretty problematic as well. A human system is always going to have flaws, especially when premised on the notion that people are not (a) morons, (b) jerks, or (c) both. I don't think I'd trade out our current system on that basis though.
I don't understand 22 at all. Could you unpack that a bit?
I didnt read the article, but as Carp says, forcible sodomy is a separate crime.
A criminal defendant is entitled to clearly know what they are being accused of doing.
Given the number of people falsely jailed, I hate these cases where everyone gets pissed bc someone was found not guilty.
Yea, it stinks, but it is NOT a reason to make the rules more difficult for defendants.
3: I saw Shearer's name in the latest comments list and wondered just how offensive he could manage to be on this. He exceeded even my expectations. Kudos, jackass.
Why wasn't it a hung jury? That's usually what happens when there's a crazyass. Maybe everyone figured the guy was getting punished for a long time anyway so let's go home?
This guy was apprehended on the scene after witnesses to the attack called the police. The attack took place in the morning as the victim waited for a ride to work, she was stone cold sober throughout. There was physical evidence that his penis had made contact with her epithelial tissues (mouth or vagina).
I'm all in favor of keeping 'beyond a reasonable doubt' a real, strong, standard: I wasn't on the bandwagon who was outraged by the acquittal of the disgusting cop who probably raped a drunk woman in NY last year, because the amnesiac effect of alcohol really is an evidentiary problem, and the victim in that case couldn't testify with knowledge to exactly what happened.
But in this case, the general facts of the attack were established as conclusively as anything could be, which is why the jury convicted on sexual assault. What's pissing me off is that in a situation where her account was corroborated by the rest of the evidence in almost every respect, that the holdouts decided to dismiss her testimony as unreliable on the only point where it wasn't conclusively confirmed by other evidence.
This is an account from one of the pissed-off jurors.
Juries do odd things. Clearly, three jurors had different thoughts than 9 others. That is the take away for me.
The case was tried in a courtroom and the jurors heard the evidence.
I guess we can discuss this assuming that the one pissed-off juror's account is 100 percent accurate.
But, since I have never seen an accurate report of any trial that I have any knowledge about, I am not inclined to get pissed off just bc the newspaper wants to write a story to make people get pissed off.
Good to know that you're not pissed off. From what I know of the evidence presented, I still am.
And that juror only said that one of the holdouts made that statement.
When we have complete interviews with all of the jurors, then we can talk about conclusive evidence.
The trier of fact sees the evidence and decides. Not the newspapers spin. Or one pissed off juror.
From what I know of the evidence presented, I still am.
Then the reporter was successful based on the "evidence" that the reporter presented to you.
Of course, you werent presented with evidence, but after the fact comments about it.
What percentage of trials that you had some involvement in were accurately reported in the media?
Do you think the reporter had an agenda?
Do you think the juror had an agenda?
Yes, the reason given by that pissed-off juror sounds ridiculous! Since that juror only said that "One" of the holdouts mentioned that one thing, and the article left out any other possible reasons mentioned by the three holdouts, I am guessing that there is more to the story.
Whatever the holdouts said their reasons were, they had uncontradicted testimony from a sober victim whose story was corroborated by other evidence in most respects, and they chose to find it insufficient.
Anyhow, in the abstract I can't really justify the jury system in its current form given the large percentage of total morons in the adult population. But in practice it's remarkable how rare cases like this are and anecdotally and experientially for me most juries seem to get things right (or, when they don't, to get them wrong in justifiable ways based on the evidence).
Still don't quite understand why if there was this level of crazy on the jury it didn't just hang.
39:
And you know this how? From the newspaper article?
Yes, based on one side's version, it is outrageous.
Thank goodness trials are not based on just one side's version made to a newspaper reporter.
I think I could have a 100 percent victory rate if cases were decided on the information that I feed to a sympathetic reporter.
Pena didn't testify -- if you read the coverage of the trial, any denials came from his lawyer. If you can figure out how there could have been evidence contradicting her testimony that he raped her (given the multiple eyewitnesses to the assault and the physical evidence that his penis touched either her mouth or her vagina, and his semen on her underwear) other than testimony from him disputing the fine details of the assault, you're cleverer than I am.
Still don't quite understand why if there was this level of crazy on the jury it didn't just hang.
Sorry, I should have answered this before. It's a mistrial on that count, but a conviction on the others. The prosecution could try again, but probably won't given the convictions.
Anyhow, in the abstract I can't really justify the jury system in its current form given the large percentage of total morons in the adult population.
On the contrary, in the abstract it's fine; the abstraction includes a modal citizen who is intelligent and well informed enough to understand and evaluate any evidence that may be presented, and sufficiently independent minded and self aware to overcome any pressures or prejudices they may be subject to.
It's in the concrete that the problems start.
What percentage of trials that you had some involvement in were accurately reported in the media?
Everyone, when they see a story they know about first hand in the news, says "My god, the reporter got even the most basic facts about the situation wrong."
And yet, everyone continues to listen to the news.
||
Woot, I'm up to running a mile and a half!
|>
||
What kind of hardware would I need in order to have an MP3 player that says between songs "And that was $band_name with their [hit, number, groovin tune] $song_name. We're coming up on $time and up next $band_name!"
|>
45: That's not my experience at all.
In my area of expertise, while the news often gets the interpretation wrong, they are quite reliable on the basic underlying facts.
A good heuristic might be, if it's something that would be easy to catch if wrong, then it's probably correct. If not, not.
I agree with LB that the juror in question probably (I think "preponderance of evidence" the appropriate phrase) was really dumb, but 31 is right about the general issue - juries being too reluctant to convict is a smaller problem for our society these days than juries not being reluctant enough.
I think the jury system functions as well as it does, because while there are many stupid and crazy people out there, most of them are unable to resist peer pressure for long.
45.last: Don't they give you a TA who could do the announcing for you?
50: I work at a community college. I teach 10 courses (5 preps) a year, with no TAs to do my grading or announce song titles for me.
anecdotally and experientially for me most juries seem to get things right (or, when they don't, to get them wrong in justifiable ways based on the evidence).
I tend to think this is true overall, though I think there's a difference between evaluating the evidence fairly and understanding how to apply the law (and jury instructions). In my one experience on a jury, I was impressed with how seriously all the jurors took their responsibility and we had pretty good discussions overall. However, as I see I've already explained here . . .
When I was on a jury, I kept pressing the point that we weren't there to decide if the defendant was more likely guilty than not, but whether the state had met its burden of proof. It was a distinction without a difference to most of the jurors. (Though we did acquit the guy on a couple of counts and hung on a couple of others. No, I wasn't the lone hold out.)
N=1 is insufficient evidence for What Juries Do, but misunderstanding the presumption of innocence and burden of proof seems common in the general populace. I think L&O probably helped that misunderstanding along. (Not necessarily more than other trial shows, save for its omnipresence.)
What kind of hardware would I need in order to have an MP3 player that says between songs "And that was $band_name with their [hit, number, groovin tune] $song_name. We're coming up on $time and up next $band_name!"
Hardware you made yourself. Also, you'd need to be nuts.
Or just listen to the radio.
51: I guess you'll just have to have your Indian manservant do it for you, then.
Sounds more like software than hardware. Surely you can find some poor college student to pay a meager wage to write the program for you.
Well, yes, but with no guarantee of being able to implement it on the hardware. I suppose you could write an entire mp3 player for an Android phone, with the required interstitial announcement. But at that point you do have to wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just look at the mp3 player and see what track is playing.
Understanding that different things are different is really hard for a lot of people. Most people think in very messy ways, and are unable to make anything precise. It makes teaching mathematics very difficult, and it makes people bad at thinking legally.
You could just make mixes with a track saying what you want interspersed. Have the colleve student write a program to generate the mixes.
Also, you'd need to be nuts.
Obviously, I already have that part covered.
That's the kluve I would use, anyway.
I suppose you could write an entire mp3 player for an Android phone, with the required interstitial announcement.
Quite hard. Track info isn't held as a sound file, so you'd have to include and train a reader, which isn't insuperable until you remember what a lot of band names look like and how they're spelled etc.
Now that you're tenured, you can probably uncover your nuts.
Use a Captcha system to gather recordings of pronunciations of the bandnames. Force everyone to record one before posting a comment on Unfogged.
"And next up is 'goddammit, rob!' by 'this is bullshit!'"
Track info isn't held as a sound file, so you'd have to include and train a reader, which isn't insuperable until you remember what a lot of band names look like and how they're spelled etc.
I was assuming that it would just use a standard voice synthesiser (doesn't Android have one built in?). It would sound terrible, but then it's a terrible idea in the first place.
I can't think of when I've felt that hostile toward a juror, just for being stupid.
Heh, I've had that feeling a time or two. Also, judges. This video cheers me up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FrMKkwgryQ
Everyone, when they see a story they know about first hand in the news, says "My god, the reporter got even the most basic facts about the situation wrong."
That's definitely been true a number of times when I've been at events (abortion clinic defense, protests & marches). The most egregious was an NPR report on the size of the crowd at one of the anti-war marches in D.C. before Operation Destroy Iraq's Physical, Social, Political, and Military Infrastructure. There's never agreement on the size of marches, but she reported 10,000 when there were somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000. (NPR issued a correction after a deluge of complaints.)
I knew the reporter and she walked along with us for a while, admitting that she'd never been to a march in D.C. and didn't know how to estimate the size. We gave her our estimate and some ideas on reaching her own. If you've been to enough events in D.C., you'd know in a heartbeat that 10,000 was absurd. Even if you hadn't, some back-of-the-envelope calculations about the march route and the size of the crowd at any given point would have told you the same thing.
(She was a part-time local reporter then and has since moved to Marketplace. I can't hear her on the radio without thinking about that report and the fact that we was pretty clueless about, oh, most things. She's a very nice person, though.)
I see you all have moved on to weightier topics.
Now that you're tenured, you can probably uncover your nuts.
We had a call yesterday go out over the radio of a public urinator. Apparently it was also important that an update go out over the air that the subject was now refusing to put his genitals back in his pants.
weightier
They're like church bells, I tell you.
So, it took me about 30 seconds to create an Automator service to do this on a mac. So if you have one, and are playing your tunes in iTunes, it's easy.
Step 1:
new Automator service
Step 2:
Drag the 'Get the Current Song' action in
Step 3:
Drag the 'Speak text' action in
Step 4:
Press Go.
You'd need to add a few more steps to have it trigger automatically on track change.
On a computer it's not so hard. It's the portable mp3 player that's the issue. Pretty sure you can't just run scripts on an iPod.
Yeah, but if you were using a computer, it's easy enough. Of course, I'm on team 'why the fuck?' on this one.
Well the next obvious step is to stream the audio from your mac and then get an app that'll play the stream on your phone.
76: Good point. Presumably something like Splashtop would work, if there's a Mac verison.
Pretty sure you can't just run scripts on an iPod.
But iPod, at least the shuffle (or whatever the mini one is called now), has the song announcing function built in. I'm on team wtf as well, but I am always being prompted to update my iPod so that I can have it.
But iPod, at least the shuffle (or whatever the mini one is called now), has the song announcing function built in.
See, I'm not crazy! Other people thought this would be a nice feature to have!
On the jury thing, I will say that my one experience on a jury (I may have it here before) left me rather dubious in general, and utterly appalled in the specific instance. Caveat: I was an alternate and only heard about the verdict and the reasoning after I chanced upon one of the other jurors months later in a restaurant It was a 1st degree murder trial with two defendants, no doubt as to the actual killing, the question being whether the defendants come there with a gun for that purpose or just happened to be there and had a gun. The story that emerged over the several days of the trial was so incredibly fragmentary and contradictory on that point, plus hard to follow (and Pennsylvania is a "no personal notes" state for jurors) that I was annoyed that they'd even tried for first degree. But turns out the vote was to convict, the logic apparently being that one of the jurors noticed a red bandanna on the ground in the pictures from the scene and they decided it must have been a "gang" thing (trust me, there had been absolutely zero testimony related to gangs), and that somehow led them to a verdict of guilty of 1st degree murder. I'm sure they were sitting in the room with a big collective WTF? and the only concrete thing they had were the pictures so they went with it based on racism and their experience of watching the evening news and TV cops shows.
Also, judges.
This got me to actually look up the decision in which Philip Seymour Hoffman's mother issued a "do not conceive" ruling. It is noteworthy (not, I realize, the most egregious ruling one could think of but, for some reason, the one that came to mind):
ORDERED that effective upon the date of personal service of a copy of this order upon respondent Stephanie P. and so long as this order or an extension of it is in effect, the respondent Stephanie P. shall not get pregnant again until and unless she has actually obtained custody and care of Bobbijean P. and every other child of hers who is in foster care and has not been adopted or institutionalized; and it is further
ORDERED that effective upon the date of service of a copy of this order upon respondent Rodney E. Sr. and so long as this order or an extension of it is in effect, the respondent Rodney E. Sr. shall not father any other child or children until and unless he has actually obtained custody and care of Bobbijean P. and every other child of his who is in foster care and has not been adopted or institutionalized or had custody granted to another party; . . .
...
Some may argue that having unlimited children is a constitutional right protected by the very same constitutional right of privacy that protects the right to practice birth control (Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479), a woman's right to an abortion (Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, supra), and a homosexual's right to engage in consensual sex with another homosexual (Lawrence v Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472; 156 L. Ed. 2d 508; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5013). This court notes, however, that the language of the United States Supreme Court, in Stanley v Illinois (405 US 645, 651), implies otherwise. This case, regarding the constitutional rights of an unwed father to his children, does not say that the right to conceive a child is essential, but the rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential". The U.S. Supreme court wrote, in its most relevant part,
81: I don't even know what to say about that except how viscerally upsetting that ruling is to me, even knowing it's been vacated. I mean, nobody's making a movie like October Baby about someone like Mara and, well, never mind. I should stop talking. Argh.
how viscerally upsetting that ruling is to me
Sorry.
I mean, yes, the ruling is viscerally upsetting, but I wasn't trying to ruin anybody's day by posting it. It's just such a striking example of a case in which you can see the thought process, and marvel at how she's arrived at such an appalling conclusion.
83: No, I almost came back to say that it's viscerally upsetting for political rather than personal reasons. I mean, I don't know that I was a planned child and do know that if my mom had been able to space her children as she'd preferred, the last child would have been someone other than my actual brother and I don't worry about any of those other potential outcomes.
So it's not that I'm upset because such a policy would have taken away my precious child, which it wouldn't have anyway since I think Mara was in utero when her older siblings were removed to the aunt who cares for them now, but just because what kind of a horrible people are we if this is how we treat our poor people? That's all I really meant to say.
But turns out the vote was to convict, the logic apparently being that one of the jurors noticed a red bandanna on the ground in the pictures from the scene and they decided it must have been a "gang" thing (trust me, there had been absolutely zero testimony related to gangs), and that somehow led them to a verdict of guilty of 1st degree murder.
We all know that the criminal justice system is riddled with racism, but it's that much more dismaying when you get the details on something like this. (will, I'll stipulate that I wasn't there, but if the jury saw gangs as a factor -- even if not the deciding factor -- in the absence of any evidence, it's still appalling.)
85:
Setting aside the issue about whether we truly know why a jury or an individual jurors votes the way that they did, I find jurors convicting in the absence of sufficient evidence much more likely and much more tragic.
I just cant work up much outrage when a jury failed to convicted someone of one charge, when they convicted the person of three other serious charges.
||
So, I'm in charge of a program. There are five people on the admissions committee and I'm a non-voting member.
We had 6 males and 20 females apply to the program. One person voted yes for all 6 males, and yes for 8 females.
The problem is that this person is massively out of step with all other committee members. There were 10 females where all others voted "yes" except him. Also, he voted in favor of all candidates who did not get enough votes.
It doesn't really affect who gets into the program and who doesn't, because the numbers are small and the rest of the committee was pretty consistent. Is this something worth talking to him about?
|>
87:
Out of curiosity to find out why he viewed it so differently or talking with him in order to instruct him to do it differently?
Also, he voted in favor of all candidates who did not get enough votes.
You mean none of the candidates he voted for were admitted? That is weird, even putting aside the gender issue. It seems like something you could ask about: "So, I noticed that the rest of the committee was out of step with you on who they thought should be admitted. Do you have any thoughts on where your standards are different, and what might lead people to agree with you?" That's not the right phrasing, but you see what I mean: invite him to lay out his vision of who belongs.
89: No, there weren't many rejected candidates (4). 2 girls, 2 guys.
Got it -- he voted in favor of all four of the unsuccessful candidates.
If I were going to guess, it'd look to me as if he was imposing rough gender balance: that he didn't want to admit many more women than men. That explains voting for the two men who didn't make the rest of the committee's cut, and explains not voting for ten women who everyone else admitted, but it does leave voting for two women who weren't otherwise admitted unexplained.
I have almost an institutional concern - I generally like this person, but it's very hard to have any real knowledge of how they interact with students, and I'd like to know if he exercises a gender bias.
With the unbalanced pool of applicants, it seems not impossible to me that he might have been in good faith applying affirmative action on behalf of the male students, but not generally biased against women -- bias under these circumstances wouldn't strike me as clearly diagnostic of bias generally.
67: Doesn't the Park Service provide "official" crowd estimates (subsequently disputed by everybody, but at least a putatively objective assessment) for at least demonstrations/marches that occur on or around the Mall?
95: I think at some point they quit doing that due to the disputes and accusations of politicization.
95: No. They used to, but stopped, precisely because people dispute them so much it's not worth the NPS's trouble. The only one they've done since the Million Man March was for Obama's inauguration to see if it broke the record. (Racist!) (It did.)
93: If you want to know whether he has gender bias issues with his students, isn't there some way you (or administration) can put the question to the students instead of him? Hard to say how a nameless person I don't know will react, but I'd venture it would be a fairly common reaction to find your question offensive if your concern is off the mark, and to act even more offended if your concern is in fact on the mark.
(What was the ratio of men to women on the committee, incidentally?)
98: I don't know, the phrasing of 89 looks so diplomatic that I can't imagine a reasonable person being bothered by it. Well, the "what might lead people to agree with you," might be too patronizing, but that's just nitpicking - it's a very straightforward issue.
A bigger problem is the assumption of a reasonable person, of course, but Heebie would how likely that is.
Chances are he will also have noticed he was out of step with the committee. I suppose one could try something a bit simpler than 89, like: "So? How 'bout that committee, huh?" One would know right off if he was either just dying to vent about it or loath to speak about it, and if his reaction was just confused then one could probe a little further.
HB:
What is your purpose in talking with him?
I agree with Castock that a low-key approach would probably work well.
Is your purpose in talking with him to determine who is on the committee next year?
It seems perfectly legitimate to ask genuinely curious questions to find out how he viewed the process and the program.
"So? How 'bout that committee the tits on candidate #4, huh?"
I agree with JP! Set a trap:
"How would you rank the various female candidate's asses to mine?"
(What was the ratio of men to women on the committee, incidentally?)
4 men, 1 woman.
Chances are he will also have noticed he was out of step with the committee.
This, no. They just each emailed me their votes individually.
What is your purpose in talking with him?
I suppose that my ulterior motive is related to the tenure process. He strikes me as a reasonable guy, but I'm terribly rosy-colored when it comes to assessing people. I could easily need to write him a tenure letter, or be on the committee, and this strikes me as a situation worth sniffing around at to see if there's anything going on. (Or not.)
106: He knew the other guys were all hounddogs and was compensating for their probable votes for the cute chicks.
Oh, if he doesn't know about the discrepancy, then I'd really ask him: "Your recommendations were way out of step with everyone else's -- far enough off that it doesn't look so much like disagreement about the individual students as a different understanding of the proper standard. Can you go through your thinking with me so I can compare it to the rest of the committee's, and figure out how to get everyone on the same page (as well as which page it should be) for next time?" Or something.
(And I wouldn't have a strong expectation about what his thinking was: that seems like a situation with a lot of possibilities.)
That sounds reasonable. Can I do this over email?
111: I'd go with in person, unless you want an e-mail paper trail or you think in person would seem confrontational or something. You're trying to find out the nuance of why he made weird choices, and it's a topic he seems relatively likely to not want to talk about, right? Seems easier to pick up on nuance in person, and harder to avoid than an e-mail. Again, though, some people would react to it better than others.
Damn. I'm lazy and that's more work, although you're probably right.
Have you considered shooting him in the face and feeding him to living dinosaurs?
What, like pigeons? Do they eat human flesh?
114: No, but is that something you've found effective?
This is a guy with some influence over your tenure??
And you want to suggest that he was "way out of step"?
That seems like a great idea. Cant imagine how that could go poorly.
116 -- sometimes. Depends on the person and the dinosaurs.
118:
Ok. Shame on me. I thought HB had tenure.
She does -- she's trying to figure out this guy to know whether she should advocate for him when he goes up for tenure.
And I generally like this guy and I'm not out to sink him. What LB said.
It's just such a striking example of a case in which you can see the thought process, and marvel at how she's arrived at such an appalling conclusion.
It's less of a marvel if you deal with these types on a regular basis. Some people are seemingly hell bent on supplying the future inmate population. I'm not advocating for judges deciding who gets to have kids or anything but boy do I understand her impulse.
90
89: No, there weren't many rejected candidates (4). 2 girls, 2 guys.
I note despite this guy's votes you rejected 33% of the guys and only 10% of the girls.
Were any of the other sets of selections notably skewed in favor of girls?
Logically they must have been, to override him so much.
Five'll get you tenure making an issue out of a misunderstanding.