Smith and his cronies

The discussion thread has been opened
Regarding the progress made by Smith.
Without even being fully introduced, let alone having reached any kind of resolution, someone is already attempting to insert themselves into the political arena.
At the very same time, the conversation regarding Miller has remained centered on politics.

How can we possibly apply uniform criteria when we are dealing with the minister's personal interests?🙄

jadeseal4 said:It really comes down to those standardized criteria—or rather, the lack thereof—and how much they bend to the Minister's whims. It’s all about those little favors.🙄

Do you even have any shame, jadeseal4? Seriously? I closed that thread about Miller yesterday morning after explaining myself—I did it because there isn’t actually anything controversial about his situation. He’ll drop off the front page the second people start skipping over it, and honestly, that'll happen pretty soon since he's already sinking to the bottom.
On the other hand, even though sixteen different people have already laid out solid arguments for why there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Smith's title—which, let's be honest, feels like you're just bringing up petty distractions to stir the pot—this debate isn't going anywhere. It's never truly closing because it's all tied up in the broader conversation about that man himself.
So, I guess it’s up to you to tell me. Who really came out on top here—Miller or Smith? And honestly, who’s actually pulling the strings for whom?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Do you truly have no shame, jadeseal4? Honestly? The discussion regarding Miller was concluded yesterday morning after I explained my reasoning—that there is absolutely nothing controversial about his situation. He will vanish from the headlines the moment other topics take precedence, which should happen quite soon given how low he has fallen on the agenda.
On the other hand, even though sixteen people have likely provided reasoned arguments as to why there is nothing problematic about Smith's headline—a point you seem to be raising merely to provoke—this issue will never truly be settled because it is inextricably linked to the broader conversation surrounding that man.
So, tell me, who has fared better in this scenario, Miller or Smith, and whose influence actually carries weight here?

We are back to the same old patterns again.
Miller
He’ll drop off the front page, but he’ll still be a fixture in the main news cycle.
He remained a headline fixture until the thread was locked.
You closed the matter appropriately—immediately following his Press release.

Smith
Only four or five people are standing up for him.
We shall see how this ends.
The entire subject is being drowned out by the general discourse surrounding his persona on the national political stage.

Essentially, the discussion about Miller was productive, whereas the one about Smith exists solely to stir the pot.😂

And yet, you have the audacity to question my integrity?

You’re something else. Of course it’s rigged. You clearly don't grasp the distinction between a PhD and an assistant professorship, nor do you understand the specific criteria for tenure or how different universities operate. People are right here quoting the exact differences, listing the requirements, citing regulations, and even providing links to academic papers, yet you just ignore all of it to push your own nonsense. My bad—you were just trolling. We’re done with this topic until you actually come up with some real evidence. Best of luck to you, though.

jadeseal4 - I suppose I wonder about the specific significance of where a locked thread is located—does it matter if it stays on the main page or moves elsewhere?

If it's been locked, then it's simply locked.

Do you honestly believe we have enough time to worry about minor details, such as exactly which section a closed thread resides in once we've shut it down?

It's all just various things, I guess. 🙄

slybison8 said:jadeseal4—I find myself wondering, in what specific sense does the location of a locked thread actually matter? Does it truly make a difference whether it sits on the main page or buried in some sub-forum?

If a topic is closed, it is closed, regardless of its placement.

Do you genuinely believe we possess the luxury of time required to obsess over minute details, such as precisely which corner of the site a closed discussion should reside in once we have finalized it?

It is all quite absurd, 🙄

It appears you may have misread the situation.

The thread is still active.
Regarding how much progress Smith has made.
It hasn't even been started, let alone resolved; someone is simply trying to force their way onto the political stage.
Meanwhile, the discussion regarding Threshold has always remained within the politics section.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You are truly remarkable. Of course this is a case of tampering. You seem to lack even a basic understanding of the distinction between a PhD and an assistant professorship, nor do you grasp the specific criteria required for such positions or which universities grant them. While others are meticulously citing differences, requirements, and regulations, providing direct links to academic articles, you simply disregard all factual evidence to push your own narrative. My apologies, but you are clearly just trolling. We shall consider this entire argument closed until you can produce a single shred of actual proof. Warm regards from the trolls.

The behavior you are exhibiting is quite pathetic.
It has been made perfectly clear that, according to federal regulations, he was required to submit one peer-reviewed paper to his doctoral defense committee—yet, if anyone could please produce it, because it is conspicuously absent from his published works during that period.

Furthermore, based on his current list of publications, it is evident that he fails to meet the necessary qualifications for an assistant professorship as well.