Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so …
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
I wonder who made up “Sticks and Stones” being that words are so powerful they can feel like an actual assault.
So true - I really love watching the people who DO manage to turn the tables on them.