Talk:Clarence Thomas/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archived discussion

Archived old discussion (over 1 year old). Previous discussion can be found here.

Clarence Thomas Dissent in HUDSON v. McMILLIAN, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

The exact quote is: "In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment." In concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents."

The word he is using is "tortious" it was spelled correctly. There was no need to change it. He is talking about a "tort." It is a legal term. It means: "Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"Tortious" is the adverbial version of "tort." So there is no need to change it. I reverted it back to its exact wording. It has nothing to do with the word torture.-----Keetoowah 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Figuring if one person misunderstood others might, I linked 'tortious' to point to 'tort'. —Morven 21:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


NPOV

I'm too young to know much about the Anita Hill/Confermation Hearings mess, but it seems that the section dealing with this is essentially an argument against Hill and thus for Thomas. It is also a bit long, as are the many paragraphs on Thomas's judicial philosophy and associated cases - much longer than with the other 8 Justices (and more disorganised).

There are two serious problems with this NPOV label. First, you will not register and state who you are. No one can make a major edit such as that and not state who the heck you are. Second, the comments that you write above about the article have nothing to do with NPOV. You did not make any comments on the substance of what is written in the Thomas article. So to sum up the NPOV label with be remove immediately because you are attempting to make a major edit to an article anonymously, which is a hugely unacceptable situation and you don't have any substantive arguments against the article other than it is long and disorganized (which it isn't of course). Your change will be quickly reverted.----Keetoowah 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keetoowah, you seriously misunderstand Wiki policy. Anyone can make an edit minor or major to an article with or without a login name. Wolfman 04:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


No I don't. If someone wants to make a major edit, then they need to set up and state who they are. Also, this discussion is irrelevant because the anonymous editor did NOT raise a substantive change anyway.-----Keetoowah 14:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sir, that may be your opinion. Your opinion is not policy. Policy is in fact directly contrary to your opinion in this case. I might also note that you have not listed stood up and said who you are. Please state your name, address, and telephone number before you edit further, lest you be accused of hypocracy. Wolfman 15:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, my policy is that I think that it needs to be edited then I will edit it. And I think that if someone wants to make a major edit then they need to come to this Talk page and explain themselves to me or I will edit it if it needs editing--just like you do all the time. Also, I don't if you know if you know that you did NOT spell "hypocrisy." Now, if this was the main article then I would edit your comments so that you could spell correctly.-----Keetoowah 22:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(a) I see from your recent block that you have a problem with anger management and interpersonal relationships. (b) I merely suggested that you apply the same standards to yourself that you demand of others; they are not my standards (c) I suppose that I should feel inferior to you and your demonstrated mastery of spelling. But strangely, I don't. Wolfman 23:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wolfman, you don't know me and you know nothing about me, but yet you are making broad and incorrect statements about me. Since you took one stupid little block on the Wikipedia Web site and extrapolated to the broad and incorrect conclusions that you did indicates that your logical reasoning is faulty. It indicates that you have a tendency to make irrational conclusions and then state those irrational statements for the whole world to see. Now in the Brave New Wikipedia World your attack on my personality--even though you don't know me and even though I have never met you, even though I do NOT ever want to meet you, but yet you still are attacking me personally--in the Brave New Wikipedia Politically Correct World, you do NOT get blocked for your personal attack on me. I will re-iterate why I have stated before, if I see that something needs to be edited I will edit it and that includes your work. If you can't spell then I will provide assistance to you and help you with the spelling of simple words such as "hypocrisy." I can't be held responsible for your lack of an ability to spell, but I am here to offer you assistance when you can't. Most Sincerely,----Keetoowah 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I know you got blocked for personal attacks. And I know you either don't understand Wikipedia policy about anonymous edits or willfully ignore it. And I know that you demand others state who they are before editing, while you hide behind a pseudonym. And I know your edit summaries display a rather strong point of view -- "damn liberal lies" for example. However, thank you for your kind speling offor. In turn, if you ever need any more help with your anger management problem please let me know. Your friend, Professor Wolfman, Ph.D. 20:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wolfman, please don't comment about me any longer. You obviously have personal issues. I don't know what they are, because unlike you I don't presume to know you. You don't know me and you will never know me, therefore, you haven't earned the right to comment about me. You need to go work on your personal issues, whatever they are, and leave me alone. It is truly a comment on our society, though, that you make vast, broad inaccurate judgments based upon so little information. I think that it indicates that most anyone can become a Professor these days. Also, it is a sad commentary on our society that someone can earn a PhD and not obtain an ability to spell. It is so clear that Professors are a dime a dozen these days. I guess that is why the pay is low and Professor generally no longer earn any respect from the public. Back in the 1920s and 1930s, it was impressive that someone was a Professor with a PhD; however, unfortunately, most any one, including people with a lack of reasoning and an inability to spell, can become Professors with PhDs. What a shame!-----Keetoowah 21:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, dear Keetoowah. Looks like you've gone and gotten angry again. I always find a nice nap calms me down when I'm cranky. You should try it. Anyways, the initial point was to educate you on Wikipedia policy. For some reason, you found being educated offensive. For some reason, ignorance is fashionable these days. To each his own. Love, Wolfman. P.S. Obviously, I knew you'd have a conniption about the professor thing, just wanted to see how creative you'd get with it. To my disapointmant, your sarcasm is soarly lacking in creatifity. Wolfman 00:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you feel more powerful with your personal attacks upon me? Does it give you a feeling of power and authority? God knows that as a Professor, in a low pay position, you must feel the need to find power and authority where you can. It must feel great being the bully of the Wikipedia playground. Man, I want to be you. HAH!-----Keetoowah 02:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Poor Keetowah. You assume so much, but know so little. Ever hear of anti-trust litigation, my dear law-student? I hear there's quite a market for expert witnesses, and that would be me. As for personal attacks, I don't believe I've made any. That would seem to be your domain of expertise, good sir. Wolfman 03:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One more personal attack from the Professor. You work for an Attorney, don't you? The Attorney doesn't work for you. Come back to me when the Attorney works for you and then you will have something to brag about, but until then the PhD works for the JD. HAH! I wonder what your next personal attack will be?-----Keetoowah 03:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall making any personal attacks. But if you look through the conversation above, you might have slipped in a few. At any rate, it's been quite enchanting getting to know you. But I'm done now. See you around the wiki, and good luck with your homework. Wolfman 03:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You don't stop with the personal attacks, do you? I hope you got it out of your system. I'm sure you have to go get ready for a day in court, working for one of my colleagues. I'll see you again when they work for you. I'm sure that will be never.-----Keetoowah 03:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "further reading" link to sowell's book. the book has nothing to do with thomas. the article already includes a wikilink when the book is mentioned.

I took out the line claiming that Hill's supporters argued that when she followed Thomas from one job to the next, "her behavior is characteristic in women encountering sexual harassment." No one ever claimed that Hill's behavior was "characteristic" of sexual harassment victims, and by all rational considerations Hill's behavior was totally unexpected for a purported victim of harassment.