undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNitpickLawyer1y ago0 comments

You created this account 1hr ago, and are already 3 comments in on this topic. In all your comments you're doing mental gymnastics on a pretty clear-cut case. they have tapes.

Imagine, for a second, having tapes on someone saying "Our organization, he said, “wasn’t for ~~Caucasians~~ <insert minority here>, it wasn’t for, you know, the ~~white~~ <insert minority here> male, it wasn’t for an alien on Mars,” and he confirmed that he provided information “to minimize the competition.”

Would you still argue this the way you are doing? Would this still have been buried? Are you actually trying to argue this isn't a blatant case of racism?!

0 comments

spectraldrift1y ago

Let's focus on the article and evidence rather than personal details or dismissive labels. Personal attacks don't add to the discussion and go against HN guidelines for civil and substantive debate.

NitpickLawyerOP1y ago

You are right. My bad. Please disregard the first line.

The tapes thing still holds, tho. They have tapes. Care to comment on those?

spectraldrift1y ago

I disagree with the actions of the rogue employee who leaked those instructions, that's clearly wrong and illegal, and it's right to call that out. However, I believe there is some misunderstanding because sharing those answers doesn’t mean the FAA lowered the bar. What happened was akin to someone unethically telling people how to cheat to get an interview referral at google- yet the actual subsequent qualification process, the rigorous training and certification, including the AT-SAT remained unchanged. The FAA still demands the same high standards from all candidates once they enter the pool.

2 more replies

arkh1y ago

Ok, let's focus on the article. Directly from it:

> they concluded the following:

> Snow was the one in the recording Reilly obtained. He explained to people how they should answer the biographical questionnaire. He advertised the telephone conference process via text, emphasizing that it was for members only, and saying things like “If you don’t answer that your friends feel you are well respected you can cancel yourself out of this announcement.” He instructed people to mention that they were NBCFAE members, as he explained it, “so the FAA would know […] this applicant is being groomed […] by an […] FAA-approved and recognized association.” Our organization, he said, “wasn’t for Caucasians, it wasn’t for, you know, the white male, it wasn’t for an alien on Mars,” and he confirmed that he provided information “to minimize the competition.”14

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsNitpickLawyer1y ago0 comments

You created this account 1hr ago, and are already 3 comments in on this topic. In all your comments you're doing mental gymnastics on a pretty clear-cut case. they have tapes.

Would you still argue this the way you are doing? Would this still have been buried? Are you actually trying to argue this isn't a blatant case of racism?!

0 comments

spectraldrift1y ago

Let's focus on the article and evidence rather than personal details or dismissive labels. Personal attacks don't add to the discussion and go against HN guidelines for civil and substantive debate.

NitpickLawyerOP1y ago

You are right. My bad. Please disregard the first line.

The tapes thing still holds, tho. They have tapes. Care to comment on those?

spectraldrift1y ago

2 more replies

arkh1y ago

Ok, let's focus on the article. Directly from it:

> they concluded the following:

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse