RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC

RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 8:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration). Give the link for the post(s) that SHOW (by way of verifiable fact, not supposition of poster) that the directive was not originated exogenously. You claim to have read the links provided in this thread. You continue to ask questions that have been answered by links in this thread. Feel free to go back through and do your own work. quote: Otherwise, why didn't the CDC or HHS (Health and Human services, parent of CDC) deny it outright, rather than claim it as "mischaracterization," as Lucy and Wayward5oul first first brought to attention here (by direct quote from the administrators themselves)? I didn't see anything officially from the CDC or HHS (within or outside this thread, from reliable sources) that this directive, or "suggestion," if you will, was derived internally. The question of derivation being addressed and answered, in fact, by denying that this external influence had as much influence as people thought. "It is a mischaracterization." Protesting quite loudly, in Shakespearean fashion. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency CDC Director says there are no banned words. I'm not sure, but that sure seems like something official from the CDC....

bounty44 -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 10:35:23 AM)
edwird, unless a small handful of people who were at the meeting referenced below are identified and interviewed, the best youre going to get is other people reporting what they know through sources available to them. in light of the absence of the aforementioned people very much "in the know" coming forward and saying "no that's not how it was at all", its a safe bet the present reporting is accurate. "No, HHS Did Not ‘Ban Words’" quote: ...First, the budget office at HHS sent the various divisions of the department a style guide to use in their budget-proposal language and “congressional justification” documents for the coming year. That style guide, which sets out a standard style for everything from capitalization of the titles of key offices to some commonly disputed points of grammar and punctuation, also sets out some words to be avoided. These, I am told, are avoided because they are frequently misused or regularly overused in departmental documents (make of that what you will) and they include three terms on the Post’s list: “vulnerable,” “diversity,” and “entitlement.” The style guide does not prohibit the use of these terms, but it says they should be used only when alternatives (which it proposes in some cases) cannot be. I don’t remember there being a style guide for budget documents when I worked at HHS and at the White House in the Bush years, but one person I spoke with suggested there was one and that the Obama administration also used a style guide. Either way, many organizations in and out of government do the same, of course, as indeed the Washington Post does. No one denied, however, that these three terms were added to the budget-proposal style guide in this administration… Second, these three terms to avoid apparently came up in the course of a meeting among career officials at the CDC late last week about preparing next year’s congressional-justification documents. That discussion then led to a conversation in the meeting about other terms that might be best avoided. (To be very clear: I did not speak with anyone who was present at that meeting, though I did speak with people who later spoke with the career CDC person who was in charge of the meeting and briefed the other career people there.) This meeting did not involve any political appointees, and apparently the conversation about terms beyond “diversity,” “entitlements,” and “vulnerable” was not about terms that anyone in the department had said should be avoided but about terms that it might be wise to avoid so as not to raise red flags among Republicans in Congress... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454752/cdc-did-not-ban-words-yuval-levin

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 11:02:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 edwird, unless a small handful of people who were at the meeting referenced below are identified and interviewed, the best youre going to get is other people reporting what they know through sources available to them. in light of the absence of the aforementioned people very much "in the know" coming forward and saying "no that's not how it was at all", its a safe bet the present reporting is accurate. "No, HHS Did Not ‘Ban Words’" ... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454752/cdc-did-not-ban-words-yuval-levin Here's the thing. Edwird is going to ignore your link because it doesn't contain firsthand accounting. That is, it isn't written by someone that was there. Even if it was, he could ignore it by making the claim that the firsthand knowledge person was lying or playing politics. Even though both of those are potentially valid criticisms, he's going to run with the idea that, since we don't have a firsthand account that has been corroborated by everyone at that meeting, that it had to be either Trump himself, or Trump's Administration (at the behest of Trump himself), that put the ban in place... even though there is zero proof or evidence that is what happened. Would that fall under confirmation bias, or does that only happen when data is analyzed?

bounty44 -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 2:20:17 PM)
when we think of "data" we have a tendency to think of hard numbers, but in the qualitative sense, how an event or an occurrence or an account of something is interpreted is still "data" and in that regard "confirmation bias" can indeed occur. but whats going on here with him is more than that (it is that too), its a rigid adherence to a desirable, but unrealistic research method combined, apparently, with a deep skepticism of a common journalistic practice, and yes, an unwillingness to accept an alternative explanation probably because trumps a fascist.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 4:25:32 PM)
Boy, you guys are even slower on the uptake than your usual selves. You hold up the megaphones and bray loudly in giving response to a question never asked. I wasn't speaking to veracity of "banning," but to origin of 'discussion' of these terms to begin with. (My last question was blatantly directed exactly to that, but two guys chose to play "Dumb and Dumber," it seems). The National Review (ex. Bush II admin.) writer's not-well-disguised purpose was to spin the whole thing as weenie lib. scientists cowering before Rep. congressmen and taking proactive measures to avoid their ire. I don't see how people read such crap and actually get pissed off, whereas all it does to thinking people is make them laugh. Any wise, that article makes the "lone shooter theory" look rock solid by comparison. The writer kept bringing up the point of a term or terms being "overused." Really? It's a freakin' budget report, not a play or movie script. "Revenue," "operating cost." etc. are a million times more overused than "diversity" or "science-based," nobody's bothering about that overabundant "overuse," are they? BTW, the job of the CDC is to keep the biological wolves away. How could any congressman, even Rep., have issue with the terms "science-based" or "evidence-based" in that venture? When a congressman thinks about some expanding growth of bio-micromonsters eating away at his pee-pee, you can bet he will insist on a real scientist rather than a reverend or 'denier' being at the job, and he doesn't give a shit what terms they use. Even weenie scientist libs know that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 5:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Boy, you guys are even slower on the uptake than your usual selves. You hold up the megaphones and bray loudly in giving response to a question never asked. I wasn't speaking to veracity of "banning," but to origin of 'discussion' of these terms to begin with. (My last question was blatantly directed exactly to that, but two guys chose to play "Dumb and Dumber," it seems). Aaaaand, Bounty's response to that post was on point. Apparently, it's your uptake that is lacking.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 7:03:10 PM)
Well, no. He, like you, didn't understand the question asked in the first place. Not a surprise. Trailing (or trolling) behind booty 44's skirt is not helping your cause, here. Street walkers not always being the best sources, etc.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 7:33:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And to think . . . You and booty 44 were expecting the kindergarten teacher to come up to you and say "you are so smart!" weren't you?

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 9:43:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Well, no. He, like you, didn't understand the question asked in the first place. Not a surprise. Trailing (or trolling) behind booty 44's skirt is not helping your cause, here. Street walkers not always being the best sources, etc. Uh huh. Stick to your delusions, Edwird.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 10:07:50 PM)
Still no answer to the question. Mental incapacity a bitch, innit?

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 10:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Still no answer to the question. Mental incapacity a bitch, innit? You would know, Edwird. Any question worth an answer has been answered.

bounty44 -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 12:03:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Boy, you guys are even slower on the uptake than your usual selves. you are one of the last people here who has the justification to have an attitude like that or who can make that discernment. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird You hold up the megaphones and bray loudly in giving response to a question never asked. both desi and I have given you responses to exactly the issue at hand. see below for a reiteration. also, how incredibly ironic, as desi has pointed out, that you keep asking questions/bringing up points that have clearly been answered either by the posters themselves or in the articles that have been shared. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird I wasn't speaking to veracity of "banning," but to origin of 'discussion' of these terms to begin with. (My last question was blatantly directed exactly to that, but two guys chose to play "Dumb and Dumber," it seems). we're both well aware of that, desi has addressed it and my post from the national review addressed that, and my subsequent reply to desi addressed EXACTLY that. why do you suppose I bolded this? quote: To be very clear: I did not speak with anyone who was present at that meeting, though I did speak with people who later spoke with the career CDC person who was in charge of the meeting and briefed the other career people there. [this is where the reporter got his information from about the nature of the discussion. that is, the genesis of the words in question and their disposition] and then followed it up with this? quote: whats going on here with him is more than that (it is that too), its a rigid adherence to a desirable, but unrealistic research method combined, apparently, with a deep skepticism of a common journalistic practice this refers to your harping on the need for the reporters to have been either witness to the original discussion(s) or at least interviewed people privy to it, coupled with a reluctance in this case to accept what journalists have to do frequently in order to report things, that is, rely on indirect sources. presumably you accept their stories in other cases. we're postulating that you don't accept the practice here because you see hate trump and see him being capable of the absolutely ridiculous thing youre accusing the administration of. youre incapable of accepting the alternative explanation, which is by far the more reasonable, and is supported by the subsequent reporting after the first initial reporting which fell into the category of journalistic malpractice. as an aside, if it helps knowing (or being reminded), the original three "banned" words came from hhs, not by trump appointees, but by career officials. I used to be a college faculty (yeah, but im part of "dumb and dumber" right??), when I edited papers and a student overused a word, I made note of it and got them to use synonyms. I still sometimes edit papers and engage in the same practice. its not the national review author who is making that judgment, he's simply reporting the judgment made by the hhs. given the above, so far as I can tell, you have either an inability to comprehend, or an inability to communicate. in any event, by all means, continue to be malicious, its really par for the course with you and your comrades.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 1:24:04 AM)
I find it remonstrable that somebody like you was ever allowed in a classroom to begin with. How often did you use the term "Comrade" to your students? That might explain the downturn in class grades in recent years. Who TF would listen to such an idiot for the rest of the semester?? I've met some 'not the brightest' instructors, in my years at the uni, but if I ever came across an idiot like you (thankfully, not the experience here) I would have sued for damages, after three words out of your mouth.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 1:30:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird I find it remonstrable that somebody like you was ever allowed in a classroom to begin with. How often did you use the term "Comrade" to your students? That might explain the downturn in class grades in recent years. I've met some 'not the brightest' instructors, in my years at the uni, but if I ever came across an idiot like you (thankfully, not the experience here) I would have sued. . o 0 (Did you learn words like "remonstrable" at the "uni"? That might have something to do with the quality of product they turn out.)

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 1:41:47 AM)
Like your avatar explains what you turn out. No question, you present yourself as a rat's asshole from the start. And you cry about people not liking you. Hate it when that happens.

bounty44 -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 1:55:15 AM)
the great irony there Michael, lost on him no doubt, is that everything you quoted from him is just all the more evidence of an inability to think, or liberal maliciousness getting in the way of doing so.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/30/2017 1:58:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird And you cry about people not liking you. I don't "cry about people not liking" me. I'm all out of FUCKS to give, when it comes to what some interwebz idiots think about me. I do contact a lawyer, when people defame me, though. I'm not saying you have; just pointing out the difference.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875