Where is resident lawyer who defended her so vehemently the last couple of days? UK had no choice but to go this route. You can't let this kind of stuff be tied to your programs without making a bold move to distance yourself. Trying to explain it away because she has had brain cancer is just ridiculous.
Are you referring to me? Is this really how you would summarize the points made last night?
In my decade plus on catspause, I don't know if I've ever come across such an obtuse mischaracterization of a recent conversation as what you have posted here.
I don't like what the woman said, but you can find someone else to debate how evil she is (or is not). How racist is she? I dunno. Probably at least somewhat, but that's subjective, and the subjective is boring to me. Your guess is as good as mine.
I'm not like most "people people" in the sense that I am much more interested in what is possible: what is likely to occur, what is unlikely to occur, and the relative probabilities of all of those outcomes. The legal precedent thus far established is just one important component in determining those probabilities.
UK did what most institutions would do from a PR standpoint, and their decision will almost certainly go unchallenged for the reasons I laid out previously. This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
100% of my points centered around legal nuances that will likely never play out (as I discussed in excrutiating depth) and an array of physiological possibilities that still don't necessarily satisfy Ockham's razor (as I discussed in even greater depth).
If you want to call me out, then do it properly. Here is my screen name. I'm always here for you.