@glitterbag,
Ah Tulane. When did he teach there?
@wandeljw,
That's how I felt. Not conclusively proven to me.
@Sglass,
More likely, she was thinking about the anniversary of all of this and she was sitting at breakfast stewing about it when she decided to call.
@engineer,
She's probably been toying with the idea for years....and perhaps had some nutty encouragement recently...
@eoe,
eoe wrote:
Not me, wandeljw.
Mrs. Thomas left the voicemail at 7:31am (or was it 7:29am??). Either way, it was way early and in pondering what could move her to make such a call so early on a Saturday morning, booze did cross my mind. Because it's completely whack.
Actually, I also believe that Anita Hill has nothing to apologize for. She would not have been there if it hadn't been for media leaks. I believe she would have preferred to keep her FBI testimony quiet.
@Lash,
Quote:No one suggested professors are wealthy.
It looked like you had suggested that since she didn't write a book until 1998.
@parados,
Nope. Just recounting all the forms of profit she enjoyed as a result of her testimony.
@Lash,
As Thomas already pointed out your earlier statement was this -
Quote:JTT - her notoriety from the hearings made her very wealthy,...c'mon.
c'mon indeed Lash.
A professor isn't "very wealthy" nor can her book published 7 years later be considered "cashing in on her notoriety".
@parados,
"cashing in on her notoriety" is your quote, deary... and I bet there's someone somewhere who may consider it worthwhile to challenge your statement ...a "book published 7 years later" can't be considered cashing in... If I see them, I'll let you know.
I do think by my standards she did get very wealthy on the coattails of her day in the national news. It's bordering funny that people seem so hellbent against admitting it. ....c'mon.
@Lash,
She's about as wealthy as hundreds of other college professors. Sure, they make more than the average auto mechanic but it doesn't make her very wealthy from her notoriety.
My bad on the quote.... it should read
cashing in on "her notoriety"
@Lash,
Lash wrote:I do think by my standards she did get very wealthy on the coattails of her day in the national news. It's bordering funny that people seem so hellbent against admitting it. ....c'mon.
OK, now you're being pig-headed on purpose because you don't want to admit a mistake. I know that further reasoning won't do any good at this point, so I'll drop it. You have a nice evening.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
She wants an apology, Oprah is starting a new network. COINCIDENCE?
I think not.
The connection is lost on me? Are you implying that Justice Clarence Thomas is trying to start up a new network of his own? One that will try to compete with Oprah's new network? The apology sounds diabolical in that light....
@Thomas,
Lash has now made it clear that she's speaking from her own definition of wealthy, no matter how 'conservative' her definition may be.
@jespah,
It sounds reasonable to me that she would want the apology. There was someone in my life that wronged me and though it has been 15 years, I would just about give my last cent to have an apology from this person. Two people actually. It would make me feel better whereas all there is now is a hole in me empty of love and yet full of bitterness. It's hard to describe, but I think a sincere apology would make me feel a lot better.
@billz5557,
I don't think that the two situations are comparable, Billz.
@billz5557,
Billz, Do you understand the exact situation discussed here or are you just talking about yourself? Should a person apologize if they truly feel they did nothing wrong? Should a rape victim apologize to her attacker because his new girlfriend thinks he is innocent and asks her to?
Granted, Mrs. Thomas's request was strange and made little sense, however, either Anita Hill was telling the truth or she was lying. Considering for just a moment the possibility that she was lying, then she tried to ruin Thomas's career, publicly, on TV, in front of the world, claiming despicable, vulgar behaviors which would have disqualified him even from being the town dog catcher. If, indeed, he were completely innocent, then I could understand how a spectacular, public false allegation might leave a wound that would never heal.
@jespah,
I don't know all that much about this, not living in the US ... but it would seem to me (after reading the NYT article) that the request for an apology amounts to much the same thing as asking Anita Hill to finally "admit" that she falsified the sexual harassment claim in the first place. There could be no other reason why she would need to apologize, right? It sounds to me like Virginia Thomas has chosen to believe that her husband was wrongly accused by Ms Hill & that she will forgive her & be her friend again if she finally admits the "truth". Rather sad, really ...
@msolga,
Ms Hill said just yesterday that she has nothing to apologize for. SO, now, instead of some hope of "burying the past", Ms Thomas has just exhumed the corpse and made it visible for a new generation of forensic review.
@farmerman,
Sure, but I was speculating about Ms Thomas's reasons for the apology request in the first place. I'm not suggesting that Ms Thomas actually had reason to apologize.
