PLAY FROM LEFT TO RIGHT --> FIRST SHANIA --> THEN BABE
|
Opening for Babe Parker - Resident Alien Shania Twain !
|
PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER FOR BABE PARKER ! |
|
|
Comedy - 5/30/2017 - Paste Studios, New York, NY
posted on YouTube Jun 13, 2017
from TV series:
"I'm Dying Up Here"
Showtime
ANSWER TO MS. PARKER'S REQUEST FOR A DEFINITION OF YUM YUMS - GO TO 11:20 - IS HERE
BABE PARKER RESPONDING TO SHANIA TWAIN
5:48
"There's nothing that'll make you feel more like a woman than mansplaining."
"Mansplaining is when a man speaks condescendingly to a woman because he thinks she doesn't know anything."
5:48
"There's nothing that'll make you feel more like a woman than mansplaining."
"Mansplaining is when a man speaks condescendingly to a woman because he thinks she doesn't know anything."
WHAT DOES SHANIA TWAIN OR BABE PARKER KNOW? SHANIA TWAIN IS NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
MOREOVER, FORMER PROFESSOR DESSLER IS A MAN.
HE HAS ACCESS TO WIKIPEDIA. HERE IS THE PROPER DEFINITION OF MANSPLAINING.
Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner." Author Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness." Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman."
MOREOVER, FORMER PROFESSOR DESSLER IS A MAN.
HE HAS ACCESS TO WIKIPEDIA. HERE IS THE PROPER DEFINITION OF MANSPLAINING.
Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner." Author Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness." Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman."
Below are notes from Former Professor Dessler's past. When he was Professor Dessler.
AKA The Professelor.
AKA The Professelor.
HERE IS A FACEBOOK POST DATED OCTOBER 8, 2014.
IT WAS WRITTEN BY A WILLIAM & MARY STUDENT WHO AT THE TIME
WAS TAKING MY "INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS" CLASS
(FRESHMAN CLASS - GOVERNMENT 204)
Her name is Katie Kanji. Look her up on Facebook.
IT WAS WRITTEN BY A WILLIAM & MARY STUDENT WHO AT THE TIME
WAS TAKING MY "INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS" CLASS
(FRESHMAN CLASS - GOVERNMENT 204)
Her name is Katie Kanji. Look her up on Facebook.
BELOW IS MY REPLY. POSTED 3:23 AM, OCTOBER 9, 2014.
IT WAS REBUKED BY MARK ZUCKERBERG.
AND EVENTUALLY TAKEN DOWN BY AOC.
WHATEVER. IT'S NO LONGER THERE.
THEREFORE, I, DAVID DESSLER, AM POSTING IT HERE FOR ALL ETERNITY.
THANK YOU, MS. KANJI, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT "BABE PARKER" (above).
IT WAS REBUKED BY MARK ZUCKERBERG.
AND EVENTUALLY TAKEN DOWN BY AOC.
WHATEVER. IT'S NO LONGER THERE.
THEREFORE, I, DAVID DESSLER, AM POSTING IT HERE FOR ALL ETERNITY.
THANK YOU, MS. KANJI, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT "BABE PARKER" (above).
Posted by Professor David Dessler on Facebook, October 9, 2014
Katie, As I told the class on the first day, I received my GED from a very reputable diploma mill. Admittedly, to get a good price I had to buy it from it from an outlet mall in Oklahoma City. Also, remember I told the class this: "I studied international relations and foreign policy in Washington, D.C." Right? And, I said: "Now I am teaching at a university 150 miles away." I left the conclusion to you. But remember, when students come to office hours, on my wall, in giant letters, are Newton's Laws. The seventh one is: "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." Below that is the Corollary discovered by Woody Allen: "Those who can't teach, teach PE." I therefore count my blessings.
So of course, Katie, I know you can do IR and foreign policy better than me. I mean, better than I can. This is why I emphasize the importance of not paying attention to credentials. Remember, in my classes, if you agree with me, you better have evidence. I tell freshman classes: the reason for this is that college is not high school, with the definition of "high school" being your grade depends on how closely you agree with the teacher. A second reason for this is that I have no idea what I'm doing. If I say something and a student says, for example, "I agree," I will challenge her for evidence. I say: "This is to make sure you are agreeing with me because you think you have a justified true belief, not because I am the professor." That is a good thing to teach students. The reality, of course, is that I do not know what I am talking about, and if I'm in a situation where I find a William & Mary undergraduate agrees with me, that is a chance to learn. So I ask for evidence.
The concept of evidence, as you know from the freshman class you are in, is central to epistemology and the philosophy of science. It is something that makes a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. In science, which is the source of all existing knowledge (defined as justified true belief), it is tacitly assumed that any two individuals who possess exactly the same evidence would be exactly alike with respect to what they are justified in believing about any given question. Even if one is a man and the other is not. Recall that, to the extent that what one is justified in believing depends upon one's evidence, what is relevant is the bearing of one's total evidence. Even if evidence E is sufficient to justify believing hypothesis H when considered in isolation, it does not follow that one who possesses evidence E is justified in believing H on its basis. For one might possess some additional evidence E′, such that one is not justified in believing H given E and E′. However, the gender of a scientist, like the university he or she (or whatever) works at, is never a good justification for belief. It cannot be E. It cannot be E′. It cannot be part of one's total evidence, because being a man is totally irrelevant to the set of considerations bearing on the reasonableness of this belief: "a man knows more than a woman because he's a man." Proven by David Hume. Men who make this argument, Hume showed, believe they can solve the Problem of Induction. Enough said.
And remember, since you are an undergraduate not at any school but at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, founded several light years ago, a statement cannot be evidence for itself. This is fact despite Jefferson's trick with his "self-evident truth" in the Declaration of Independence--how did he get away with that seven decades after Locke? You undergraduates have always been a nightmare for professors here.
Oh wait. A light year is a distance. It sounds like it denotes a long period of time, right? Well, this is why, while I do have a degree in Physics, it is only a Bachelor's degree. That means: I can't do Physics either. Physicists sent me to graduate school in international relations and foreign policy, thinking I might be able to do that. And now I am your teacher. Again: enough said.
So, okay, I accept your point. I agree: "Great, Professor Dessler got his GED." Incidentally, I happen to know that you are in the group that calls me The Professelor. I have secret agents who tell me things like that. Sometimes. Right now, I only know the term: "the professelor." After you graduate--it will be at least five years, meaning, no sooner than October 2019--wow! I wonder who will be president then?--I will learn the details. They wait so the facts don't hurt so much.
Anyway, the point is: if a guy is talking to you as if he knows more than you because he's a man, that's absurd. That is not a credential. It is an admission of liability.
In class, I speak to you as if I know more because I am your professor. Also not a credential, but at least it's not an admission of liability. Indeed, to reduce legal exposure for the College, I am told to act like I know more than the students. Otherwise you might sue. That St Andrew's tuition is enormous, remember. I was the first advisor for the IR Joint Degree Programme (see? I know the spelling). Professor Kennedy in the English Department, who directs the entire program, even the Economics part, will tell you: I survived.
Please leave your comments about me up there, Katie. The one about how I dress: fair enough. I have been getting the same comments about my ties since 1983, which is harsh, because I did not start teaching here until 1984. It turns out you students had spies at Johns Hopkins SAIS who had to approve my transfer out of the nation's capital.
Let's end this mansplaining thing once and for all! Thank you.
Katie, As I told the class on the first day, I received my GED from a very reputable diploma mill. Admittedly, to get a good price I had to buy it from it from an outlet mall in Oklahoma City. Also, remember I told the class this: "I studied international relations and foreign policy in Washington, D.C." Right? And, I said: "Now I am teaching at a university 150 miles away." I left the conclusion to you. But remember, when students come to office hours, on my wall, in giant letters, are Newton's Laws. The seventh one is: "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." Below that is the Corollary discovered by Woody Allen: "Those who can't teach, teach PE." I therefore count my blessings.
So of course, Katie, I know you can do IR and foreign policy better than me. I mean, better than I can. This is why I emphasize the importance of not paying attention to credentials. Remember, in my classes, if you agree with me, you better have evidence. I tell freshman classes: the reason for this is that college is not high school, with the definition of "high school" being your grade depends on how closely you agree with the teacher. A second reason for this is that I have no idea what I'm doing. If I say something and a student says, for example, "I agree," I will challenge her for evidence. I say: "This is to make sure you are agreeing with me because you think you have a justified true belief, not because I am the professor." That is a good thing to teach students. The reality, of course, is that I do not know what I am talking about, and if I'm in a situation where I find a William & Mary undergraduate agrees with me, that is a chance to learn. So I ask for evidence.
The concept of evidence, as you know from the freshman class you are in, is central to epistemology and the philosophy of science. It is something that makes a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. In science, which is the source of all existing knowledge (defined as justified true belief), it is tacitly assumed that any two individuals who possess exactly the same evidence would be exactly alike with respect to what they are justified in believing about any given question. Even if one is a man and the other is not. Recall that, to the extent that what one is justified in believing depends upon one's evidence, what is relevant is the bearing of one's total evidence. Even if evidence E is sufficient to justify believing hypothesis H when considered in isolation, it does not follow that one who possesses evidence E is justified in believing H on its basis. For one might possess some additional evidence E′, such that one is not justified in believing H given E and E′. However, the gender of a scientist, like the university he or she (or whatever) works at, is never a good justification for belief. It cannot be E. It cannot be E′. It cannot be part of one's total evidence, because being a man is totally irrelevant to the set of considerations bearing on the reasonableness of this belief: "a man knows more than a woman because he's a man." Proven by David Hume. Men who make this argument, Hume showed, believe they can solve the Problem of Induction. Enough said.
And remember, since you are an undergraduate not at any school but at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, founded several light years ago, a statement cannot be evidence for itself. This is fact despite Jefferson's trick with his "self-evident truth" in the Declaration of Independence--how did he get away with that seven decades after Locke? You undergraduates have always been a nightmare for professors here.
Oh wait. A light year is a distance. It sounds like it denotes a long period of time, right? Well, this is why, while I do have a degree in Physics, it is only a Bachelor's degree. That means: I can't do Physics either. Physicists sent me to graduate school in international relations and foreign policy, thinking I might be able to do that. And now I am your teacher. Again: enough said.
So, okay, I accept your point. I agree: "Great, Professor Dessler got his GED." Incidentally, I happen to know that you are in the group that calls me The Professelor. I have secret agents who tell me things like that. Sometimes. Right now, I only know the term: "the professelor." After you graduate--it will be at least five years, meaning, no sooner than October 2019--wow! I wonder who will be president then?--I will learn the details. They wait so the facts don't hurt so much.
Anyway, the point is: if a guy is talking to you as if he knows more than you because he's a man, that's absurd. That is not a credential. It is an admission of liability.
In class, I speak to you as if I know more because I am your professor. Also not a credential, but at least it's not an admission of liability. Indeed, to reduce legal exposure for the College, I am told to act like I know more than the students. Otherwise you might sue. That St Andrew's tuition is enormous, remember. I was the first advisor for the IR Joint Degree Programme (see? I know the spelling). Professor Kennedy in the English Department, who directs the entire program, even the Economics part, will tell you: I survived.
Please leave your comments about me up there, Katie. The one about how I dress: fair enough. I have been getting the same comments about my ties since 1983, which is harsh, because I did not start teaching here until 1984. It turns out you students had spies at Johns Hopkins SAIS who had to approve my transfer out of the nation's capital.
Let's end this mansplaining thing once and for all! Thank you.
==========================================================================================================================
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
MANY W&M STUDENTS KNOW: "PROFESSOR DESSLER." "ASTRONAUTS."
THE VIDEO BELOW IS JUST THE START.
"AND WE HAVE LIFTOFF !"
GOOD TWIN / EVIL TWIN SATURN V LAUNCH
VIDEO PREPARED FOR REPORTER SARAH FEARING, WYDAILY.COM, AND HER HUSBAND STEVE ROBERTS, JR.
Out Sarah Fearing (2079755459) Dec 13 2017 9.15pm (37 mins)
(conversation six months after the video above was texted to Sarah -- the context here is, Dr. Dessler is about to file a lawsuit against W&M. We discuss the idea of a "Time Capsule" column for WYDaily, which occurred to Dr. Dessler in a dream.
Sarah and Dr. Dessler discuss history (why does I-64 go through Charlottesville and not Lynchburg?).
Also, Sarah brings up the issue of students being "swept under the rug." She had just written an excellent piece on William & Mary's fraternities.
Finally, Dr. Dessler challenges Sarah's ethics. She would always decline to let him buy her lunch, even though he was at this time 62 years old and she was a very, very poor 24 year old from Maine trying to start a journalism career in Virginia with her wonderful husband, also very, very poor. Sarah had no money and worked her way through college. "I may not accept any gift worth more than $5.00," she always told Dr. Dessler. On December 13, 2017, Dr. Dessler was just back from visiting his family in Bryan. At the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, he spotted a "Don't Mess with Texas" keychain for $4.99. No tax. In the call, he tests Sarah by asking, does tax count toward the $5.00 limit? She is uncomfortable. The answer was eventually: yes. I was then able to tell her (in a later phone call) that the keychain I bought was not taxed. It was in the duty-free store.
Note to observers who do not think the good guys have won this battle: Listen to Sarah remind me, she needs that recording. Her app for recording phone calls was not working. She cannot afford the $2.99 I paid for mine. Therefore, we would talk, and I would send her the call. Sarah has 4.4 GB of my email, both Gmail and W&M email, stretching back to the summer of 2017. "Why not be honest?" - Cathy Forestell, Faculty Assembly leader, who set the requirement that Dr. Dessler prove his honesty and integrity. Dr. Dessler has done so. It is only a matter of time until that becomes clear to everyone.
Not listening to these audios, and not reading Dr. Dessler's emails, or pretending that the emails are "incomprehensible," will no longer work. It is only a matter of time until that becomes clear.
Remembering Paula Blank and honoring her work and her presence at William & Mary is, Dr. Dessler can confirm, a priority for Katherine A. Rowe. However, she is not going to say that until everyone who was at William & Mary when Paula was alive says that. Dr. Rowe is not one of those people. She knew Paula when both of them were alive as graduate students at Harvard University. Being responsible for yourself is a key element of what Dr. Rowe calls "Spirit of the Game."
(conversation six months after the video above was texted to Sarah -- the context here is, Dr. Dessler is about to file a lawsuit against W&M. We discuss the idea of a "Time Capsule" column for WYDaily, which occurred to Dr. Dessler in a dream.
Sarah and Dr. Dessler discuss history (why does I-64 go through Charlottesville and not Lynchburg?).
Also, Sarah brings up the issue of students being "swept under the rug." She had just written an excellent piece on William & Mary's fraternities.
Finally, Dr. Dessler challenges Sarah's ethics. She would always decline to let him buy her lunch, even though he was at this time 62 years old and she was a very, very poor 24 year old from Maine trying to start a journalism career in Virginia with her wonderful husband, also very, very poor. Sarah had no money and worked her way through college. "I may not accept any gift worth more than $5.00," she always told Dr. Dessler. On December 13, 2017, Dr. Dessler was just back from visiting his family in Bryan. At the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, he spotted a "Don't Mess with Texas" keychain for $4.99. No tax. In the call, he tests Sarah by asking, does tax count toward the $5.00 limit? She is uncomfortable. The answer was eventually: yes. I was then able to tell her (in a later phone call) that the keychain I bought was not taxed. It was in the duty-free store.
Note to observers who do not think the good guys have won this battle: Listen to Sarah remind me, she needs that recording. Her app for recording phone calls was not working. She cannot afford the $2.99 I paid for mine. Therefore, we would talk, and I would send her the call. Sarah has 4.4 GB of my email, both Gmail and W&M email, stretching back to the summer of 2017. "Why not be honest?" - Cathy Forestell, Faculty Assembly leader, who set the requirement that Dr. Dessler prove his honesty and integrity. Dr. Dessler has done so. It is only a matter of time until that becomes clear to everyone.
Not listening to these audios, and not reading Dr. Dessler's emails, or pretending that the emails are "incomprehensible," will no longer work. It is only a matter of time until that becomes clear.
Remembering Paula Blank and honoring her work and her presence at William & Mary is, Dr. Dessler can confirm, a priority for Katherine A. Rowe. However, she is not going to say that until everyone who was at William & Mary when Paula was alive says that. Dr. Rowe is not one of those people. She knew Paula when both of them were alive as graduate students at Harvard University. Being responsible for yourself is a key element of what Dr. Rowe calls "Spirit of the Game."
Audio circulated to students in Former Professor Dessler's Govt 204 class in late June 2017
The "FROM" address was: Molon Labe
The audio title was: "McWilliams 6-17"
The "FROM" address was: Molon Labe
The audio title was: "McWilliams 6-17"
FORMER FORMER PROFESSOR DESSLER'S
"MOST HEARTBREAKING NEWS EVER"
HERE IS A CAT WHO LIKES ONLY ONE MUSICAL ARTIST: SHANIA TWAIN.
SHE LIKES ONLY ONE SHANIA TWAIN SONG:
(IF YOU'RE NOT IN IT FOR LOVE) I'M OUTTA HERE
THIS IS MONROE.
(Orange Tabby)
Her sister Madison (she prefers Maddie) is a Calico. She does not like music.
They are a "bonded pair."
SHE LIKES ONLY ONE SHANIA TWAIN SONG:
(IF YOU'RE NOT IN IT FOR LOVE) I'M OUTTA HERE
THIS IS MONROE.
(Orange Tabby)
Her sister Madison (she prefers Maddie) is a Calico. She does not like music.
They are a "bonded pair."