3 ms·

> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” No, I didn't. "or do anything that

> No, you left out the only important part here - that the testimony is considered “adverse to the university’s interests.” No, I didn't. "or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves." > No, they were denied permission to testify. They are not allowed to accept the job pro bono, where did you get that idea? They were denied to testify as expert witnesses, yes. Professor Smith in the article has testified with UF's permission before in two suits against the State of Florida government in 2018. This time Smith is being denied. There's no evidence of a conspiracy here. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruver_v_barton_-_expert_report_of_daniel_a._smith_ph.d.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/gruv...

dahart 5y ago
I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”. > There's no conspiracy here. What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. *edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights). If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven. My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
      - dahart 5y ago
        > I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven. Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."
        dahart 5y ago
        > Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech. The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
        5y ago

dahart 5y ago

I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”. > There's no conspiracy here. What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. *edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.

endisneigh 5y ago
> What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting. I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights). If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.
- dahart 5y ago
  I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven. My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven. Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."
        dahart 5y ago
        > Saying there’s no conspiracy is not a claim You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech. The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
        5y ago