> Unless you're embezzling money or using the interns as drug mules or something.
Let's say that Holman did something not so hyperbolically terrible as these silly examples, but still terrible enough to reflect on his character for some people but not others (as in, the reason is controversial), and that's what got him fired (this is for arguments sake; I have no idea who he is or why he got fired). This sentence would then be a very important one to him in this article.
But, the sentence is embedded in the very abstract essay, which is of course a good essay, albeit not particularly novel in its ideas ("people get dealt bad hands or make mistakes and we have social mores that prevent us from rigorously considering this" what else is new?). So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue. Or it could just be a philosophical essay. I don't know what it is, but I know what it sounds like.
Can we just stop speculating about this? He didn't come out and tell us, meaning anyone that isn't close to him will never find out. This over-analyzing of the reason (wasn't even an important point in the article) is just off-topic and more importantly, completely without evidence....
(Its not just you, but everyone is trying to play internet detective. Just stop. We don't need to dig into this guy's work life....)
My comment explicitly didn't speculate on any particular reason, it pointed to language that could easily be politician-grade rhetorical defense. Did you read my whole comment?
People can speculate about the reasons if they can point to relevant historical record. Why not? This man isn't sacred, is he?
>So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue.
You are speculating here that he is pushing the issue under the rug. You also speculated that the reason he was fired was somehow related to the humorous reasons he gave. I think its a bit much....
For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out.
I did no such thing as the second thing you're saying I did.
speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
You wrote:
For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out.
You have a theory that he added a paragraph about embezzlement that might be a rhetorical defence, but you have no firm evidence. You're speculating.
The way you're calling the sentence a "very important one" is making a really vague accusation. No surprise if people can't tell what you mean, or think your point is a bad one.
Let's say that Holman did something not so hyperbolically terrible as these silly examples, but still terrible enough to reflect on his character for some people but not others (as in, the reason is controversial), and that's what got him fired (this is for arguments sake; I have no idea who he is or why he got fired). This sentence would then be a very important one to him in this article.
But, the sentence is embedded in the very abstract essay, which is of course a good essay, albeit not particularly novel in its ideas ("people get dealt bad hands or make mistakes and we have social mores that prevent us from rigorously considering this" what else is new?). So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue. Or it could just be a philosophical essay. I don't know what it is, but I know what it sounds like.