“One of the students even asked why there was such short notice for the meeting. More students wanted to meet but were intentionally discouraged from coming.” Tisk-tisk. That’s a huge misrepresentation.
You were asked why you didn’t respond to the student body’s request to hold off on this meeting until more students are back on campus after January ISPs. As to why you never responded to the request, your response was, and I quote: “uuuhhh…I didn’t…uuuhmm…uhhhh…I…” then cast your pleading beta male glance to your fascist buddy. Pathetic. And you have the gall to question anyone’s leadership.
Now I'm sorry I replied to your first comment with a thoughtful response as I should not have wasted my time. You agreed with the comment, "cast your pleading beta male glance to your fascist buddy"? That's some real objective, deep-thinking, wisdom there.
It's clear you have an agenda and your comments aren't in good faith. You sort of hid it well in your first comment (think of the children!!) but agreeing with Liz gave the game away.
What pearl-clutching Tyler? I never objected to tone but made the objectively true (albeit sarcastic) observation that Liz's comment was emotion-laden drivel rather than serious analysis. Unlike your side we don't police people's "tone" but do point out insipidity.
Whether Trustee Speir avoids questions or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that Rufo and Speir were right and the Provost was wrong (as evidenced by the fact that nothing happened). You don't get to set the terms of the debate and demand we answer questions about some perceived motivation or slight. Your demand is unserious and spurious, and an attempt to change the subject because you were wrong.
You guys really need to up your game, it's pretty obvious you've never seriously dealt with people who challenge your belief system.
The subject of the first comment is about Spier not answering a question about the scheduling of the meeting. I am not changing the subject by re-iterating the factual statement that Spier avoided the question.
Yet you nastily talked about pearl clutching and tried to make it personal rather than point something out. Again, this tendency for leftists to get dirty at the first opportunity just shows you have nothing to offer.
Unfortunately, SJW scumbags like her are the people running most educational institutions these days. Thus we're going to have to deal with them, unfortunately.
Shame on Liz Nadasday. For the weak minded who cannot follow arguments or make them, or discuss things in a civilized manner, everyone is a "fascist". This childishness has to stop.
I think the real question here is, if you believe there was a credible threat to your life, as a Trustee of the New College of Florida, why in the world would you put the lives of the students at risk. You made the assessment of threat for yourself? “This is absurd. We clearly worked through the security issues and all of the police were much more relaxed at the second meeting.” Are you trained in threat assessment?
I agree with you that living in perpetual fear is a form of insanity.
Being careless with the lives of students is another.
Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023Liked by Eddie Speir
From everything I can see the threat was not credible. The email was infantile and profane and simply referred to a flak jacket. There were no specifics or anything else to to cause them to believe it was anything more than a crank. There was no other supporting information of any kind that the threat was real. On top of that the police were at the scene and had things well in hand.
You can cower in fear waiting to pawn off responsibility to a "threat assessment expert" or you can move forward using good judgment. The problem with the former is that no one can 100% guarantee safety so the default will always be to cancel. Trustee Speir said that himself when he stated an investigation regarding the "threat" would never finish. He understands human cowardice and buck passing, as do the activists unfortunately, as they use it to their advantage.
No one was there against their will and all were free to leave. No one was "careless with the lives of students", the students are all adults and were there of their own free will. And as can be seen by the results, Trustees Rufo and Speir were exactly right.
It's time to start acting like adults and thinking for ourselves rather than cowering in fear waiting for "experts" to tell us it's safe.
What a shallow response. I gave three paragraphs of specifics explaining why the threat was not credible and why they were right to go forward. Your retort is to ignore all that and attempt to twist intent into something he did not say, and demand I explain it. Sorry, that game is over.
If your non-sequitur response is representative of the intellectual caliber on the other side, this battle won't be so hard after all.
They have not yet understood we have no obligation to accept or even reply to their made-up rhetorical questions or scenarios, but they are going to get a rude education. This isn't a marijuana-fueled college dorm room bull session.
The Provost tried the same garbage with Trustee Rufo but he smartly rejected the premise of her statements at every turn and made her explain herself. She is so used to dealing with intellectual dimwits that she sputtered incoherently in response. This from their "best and brightest".
Looking forward to watching this all play out going forward.
Please read my comment again, I’m talking about Spier’s attitude during the meeting itself, not his representation of events as written in his post. Spier’s attitude towards the threat during the meeting was as if he were storming the beaches of Normandy. If the threat was actually no big deal given the information he already had, that was just grandstanding.
Sonia is almost certainly not stupid enough to think that such an infantile message from an internet anon is a credible threat. She's simply lying because she wishes the meeting was cancelled.
That makes it even worse. There was still plenty of room for you. Again, no reason for them to stop letting people into the second meeting in my opinion. Are you a student? I plan on having more of these meetings in the coming months, both public (with other trustees) and just me (meaning no public notice is required and just for students, parents, faculty and staff).
I’ll tell you what, Eugene. You pick any text in the Western Canon, whatever you want. Then you and I can each write an analysis of it and have the professor of your choice make a comparison. I will absolutely bury your illiterate ass. We’ll see who’s basic.
it’s obvious that you have been placed here to be the bull in the china shop and make the college unattractive to new students further lowering enrollment and forcing the school to be closed.
Is it for reasons beyond budget ? Does some developer want the land? Who knows.
Great job taking control of the situation.
“One of the students even asked why there was such short notice for the meeting. More students wanted to meet but were intentionally discouraged from coming.” Tisk-tisk. That’s a huge misrepresentation.
You were asked why you didn’t respond to the student body’s request to hold off on this meeting until more students are back on campus after January ISPs. As to why you never responded to the request, your response was, and I quote: “uuuhhh…I didn’t…uuuhmm…uhhhh…I…” then cast your pleading beta male glance to your fascist buddy. Pathetic. And you have the gall to question anyone’s leadership.
Just remember, God hates a liar.
Yes
Now I'm sorry I replied to your first comment with a thoughtful response as I should not have wasted my time. You agreed with the comment, "cast your pleading beta male glance to your fascist buddy"? That's some real objective, deep-thinking, wisdom there.
It's clear you have an agenda and your comments aren't in good faith. You sort of hid it well in your first comment (think of the children!!) but agreeing with Liz gave the game away.
The rules have changed, get used to it.
All that pearl clutching over tone almost makes for successful run-around on the factual statement Liz made about Spier's habit of avoiding questions.
What pearl-clutching Tyler? I never objected to tone but made the objectively true (albeit sarcastic) observation that Liz's comment was emotion-laden drivel rather than serious analysis. Unlike your side we don't police people's "tone" but do point out insipidity.
Whether Trustee Speir avoids questions or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that Rufo and Speir were right and the Provost was wrong (as evidenced by the fact that nothing happened). You don't get to set the terms of the debate and demand we answer questions about some perceived motivation or slight. Your demand is unserious and spurious, and an attempt to change the subject because you were wrong.
You guys really need to up your game, it's pretty obvious you've never seriously dealt with people who challenge your belief system.
The subject of the first comment is about Spier not answering a question about the scheduling of the meeting. I am not changing the subject by re-iterating the factual statement that Spier avoided the question.
Yet you nastily talked about pearl clutching and tried to make it personal rather than point something out. Again, this tendency for leftists to get dirty at the first opportunity just shows you have nothing to offer.
Unfortunately, SJW scumbags like her are the people running most educational institutions these days. Thus we're going to have to deal with them, unfortunately.
Shame on Liz Nadasday. For the weak minded who cannot follow arguments or make them, or discuss things in a civilized manner, everyone is a "fascist". This childishness has to stop.
I think the real question here is, if you believe there was a credible threat to your life, as a Trustee of the New College of Florida, why in the world would you put the lives of the students at risk. You made the assessment of threat for yourself? “This is absurd. We clearly worked through the security issues and all of the police were much more relaxed at the second meeting.” Are you trained in threat assessment?
I agree with you that living in perpetual fear is a form of insanity.
Being careless with the lives of students is another.
From everything I can see the threat was not credible. The email was infantile and profane and simply referred to a flak jacket. There were no specifics or anything else to to cause them to believe it was anything more than a crank. There was no other supporting information of any kind that the threat was real. On top of that the police were at the scene and had things well in hand.
You can cower in fear waiting to pawn off responsibility to a "threat assessment expert" or you can move forward using good judgment. The problem with the former is that no one can 100% guarantee safety so the default will always be to cancel. Trustee Speir said that himself when he stated an investigation regarding the "threat" would never finish. He understands human cowardice and buck passing, as do the activists unfortunately, as they use it to their advantage.
No one was there against their will and all were free to leave. No one was "careless with the lives of students", the students are all adults and were there of their own free will. And as can be seen by the results, Trustees Rufo and Speir were exactly right.
It's time to start acting like adults and thinking for ourselves rather than cowering in fear waiting for "experts" to tell us it's safe.
If he thought the threat was negligible, why did Spier grandstand several times as if he was risking his life by speaking?
What a shallow response. I gave three paragraphs of specifics explaining why the threat was not credible and why they were right to go forward. Your retort is to ignore all that and attempt to twist intent into something he did not say, and demand I explain it. Sorry, that game is over.
If your non-sequitur response is representative of the intellectual caliber on the other side, this battle won't be so hard after all.
Well, these days, they use mob tactics and mindless fanaticism to make up for their "arguments" being gibberish.
They have not yet understood we have no obligation to accept or even reply to their made-up rhetorical questions or scenarios, but they are going to get a rude education. This isn't a marijuana-fueled college dorm room bull session.
The Provost tried the same garbage with Trustee Rufo but he smartly rejected the premise of her statements at every turn and made her explain herself. She is so used to dealing with intellectual dimwits that she sputtered incoherently in response. This from their "best and brightest".
Looking forward to watching this all play out going forward.
Please read my comment again, I’m talking about Spier’s attitude during the meeting itself, not his representation of events as written in his post. Spier’s attitude towards the threat during the meeting was as if he were storming the beaches of Normandy. If the threat was actually no big deal given the information he already had, that was just grandstanding.
Sonia is almost certainly not stupid enough to think that such an infantile message from an internet anon is a credible threat. She's simply lying because she wishes the meeting was cancelled.
Counterpoint:
Allowing a threat to derail a forum for open discussion would only empower more threats in the future.
I planned on going to the student meeting but they would not let me in because I arrived late.
That makes it even worse. There was still plenty of room for you. Again, no reason for them to stop letting people into the second meeting in my opinion. Are you a student? I plan on having more of these meetings in the coming months, both public (with other trustees) and just me (meaning no public notice is required and just for students, parents, faculty and staff).
I am a student, I am a commuter and I go to NCF with my brother.
No one can tell what happened based on this post as you cannot write a coherent paragraph.
I had no trouble telling what happened. Maybe you just have reading comprehension problems. Or maybe you don't want to understand.
I just know that you are a closed-minded fool, as evidenced by your thinking the Chris Rufo is anything other than a lying charlatan.
Wait, you're calling me "closed minded" because I'm willing to listen to someone you don't like?
As Inigo Montoya said: You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
No, you are listening to someone who lies, has admitted he lied, and keeps repeating the lies.
Except he doesn't. Whereas you have yet to demonstrate basic reading comprehension ability.
I’ll tell you what, Eugene. You pick any text in the Western Canon, whatever you want. Then you and I can each write an analysis of it and have the professor of your choice make a comparison. I will absolutely bury your illiterate ass. We’ll see who’s basic.
I’m pro trump and pro desantis in general.
it’s obvious that you have been placed here to be the bull in the china shop and make the college unattractive to new students further lowering enrollment and forcing the school to be closed.
Is it for reasons beyond budget ? Does some developer want the land? Who knows.
You really need to work on the subtlety of your concern trolling.
you sound literally retarded