re: Omar says "not to my knowledge "

quote:

---

FFS

You’re so busy dissecting the linguistics of the question and answer that you’re completely ignoring the context of why the question was asked in the first place.

The interview was addressing a specific allegation that she married her brother, not exploring whether he might be her seventh cousin twice removed.

And the irony is that your entire argument now depends on parsing the technical meaning of individual words while disregarding their obvious conversational context.

---

FFS

You’re so busy dissecting the context of why the question was asked in the first place that you’re completely ignoring the precise words of the question and answer.

The question was addressing a specific issue of whether there might be a "kernel of truth" that they were related; thus asking "You're not related to him at all?"

And the irony is that your entire argument now depends on ignoring the words of the question she was asked to find her guilty based upon her answer.

quote:

---

But sure, if you were asked those same questions about your own wife, I’m sure you’d respond, “Not to my knowledge.” LOL.

And if you genuinely can’t understand why that answer raises eyebrows given the seriousness of the allegation, or at least recognize how carefully qualified and lawyer-like the wording sounds, then I don’t know what to tell you. That’s precisely why I referenced Clinton in the first place.

---

As you've repeatedly stated throughout your posts, as well as in your most recent post, this thread is about her answer. Indeed, her answer is the subject of this thread. "Not to my knowledge."

Both you and the OP find her answer disingenuous because "the answer raises eyebrows given the seriousness of the allegation" or is "carefully qualified and lawyer-like the wording sounds." That’s precisely why you referenced Clinton in the first place.

All of your focus is on the answer. "Not to my knowledge." You damn her for that answer.

And yet you ignore the question that is asked. The question that was asked is NOT whether she was his sister or whether he was her brother. If either of those questions had been the question that was asked, her answer would justifiably raise eyebrows. But those questions were not the question that was asked. She was asked, "You're not related to him at all?"

quote:

---

You can dissect the wording all day long. It doesn’t change why the question was being asked in the first place. You know why. I know why. The interviewer knew why. And she certainly knew why.

---

You not only refuse to examine the question, but you also refuse to accept the reason why the question was asked. She had already denied that he was her brother. The question was asked as to whether there was any "kernel of truth" to the allegation that they were related at all, as in some distant capacity other than siblings. That is the question. That is why the question was asked. Was the allegation true in some minor way other than being in siblings.

Hayes clearly did not believe that there was any "kernel of truth" to them being related. He thought his question was bordering on being a joke, but one he should ask to avoid any doubt. She clearly thought so too. That is why she was laughing when she answered.

Her answer is wholly dependent on the question that was asked. The context of the interview provides no further information or interpretation.

Your reliance on examining the answer in light of the "context of the entire situation" rather than the words of the question is truly surprising.


You want a hypothetical? I'll give you a hypothetical.

You drive for a rideshare company. The media allege that you and one of your passengers shot and killed Governor Landry. The police question you about the allegations. You deny you killed the Governor.

At the end of the police interview, the police finally ask if there is any "weird kernel of truth" about your involvement in the murder, like did you have any knowledge one of your passengers was the murderer even if you're not the murderer. They ask, "Was one of your passengers involved in the murder at all?"

Your answer: “Not to my knowledge.”

The allegations were that you and your passenger killed the Governor. The context of the police interview is that you and your passenger killed the Governor.

And you give an answer of plausible deniability.

Please don’t dissect the linguistics of the question and answer and completely ignore the context of why the question was asked in the first place.

The interview was addressing a specific allegation, not exploring whether you might not have driven anywhere near the Governor’s Mansion.

And the irony is that your entire argument will now depend on parsing the technical meaning of individual words while disregarding their obvious conversational context.

I’m not ignoring the words of the question. I’m addressing the context of the entire situation and why the question was being asked in the first place.

You’re probably obsessing over how broadly the question was worded, as though the controversy was about you driving unknown passengers with unknown intent. It wasn’t. The allegation was that you drove your passenger, a passenger in your own car, so that both of you could commit murder. That’s what prompted the entire exchange.

Yes, the police interviewer broadened the question. Nobody disputes that. But pretending the broader wording somehow erases the context of the entire interview is ridiculous.

You can dissect the wording all day long. It doesn’t change why the question was being asked in the first place. You know why. I know why. The interviewer knew why.

Only 3 people in the entire UK population share her (recently disclosed) surname and all of them are related.

She got some splainin to do.

Bro, you just wrote a chapter about nothing people will read, other than me.

They have DNA. The rumor originated out of a somali "blog" many years ago.

Her actual surname is elmi, or whatever somali shite.

Right now, there is a significant chance she "married her brother" for a naturalization or green card issue?

Her family history is wild, with the dad and sisters and brothers .. so she settled with the surname Omar, which we do not specifically know if it was the dude working for the post office in MNPLS, or if she was being hidden as a genocide king generals daughter.

It's freaking wild. Thank you somalia for the cultural enrichment.

quote:

---

Another stupid post. Trying to make her response into something it was not.

---

Her response was exactly what I said it was.

quote:

---

She was asked a very specific question pertaining to her brother. She responded with a very vague response that had nothing to do with any other possible family member.

---

Why don't you post what the question was and why it was asked. Perhaps that will aid in your understanding.

quote:

---

C’mon, why fight this with stupid responses? It’s astonishing that people try to make her response something that it wasn’t. She was asked about her brother and her response was specific to the question.

---

She was asked about Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, her former husband who is alleged to be the biological brother of Ilhan Omar. Contrary to the New York Post articles, the question did not ask whether she was his sister or whether he was her brother.

quote:

---

It amazes me that people are so biased that they ignore the obvious.

---

I have no dog in this fight. I am shocked, however, that people are so biased that they ignore the obvious. That is precisely what drew me into this thread.

quote:

---

There is something about the way she talks that is worse than nails on a chalkboard to me. The embellished and prolonged consonant sounds.

---

Valleyspeak, High Rising Terminal (HRT).

This sociolect originated among affluent teenage girls in the San Fernando Valley of Southern California in the 1970s and 1980s and was popularized globally by Frank Zappa's 1982 song "Valley Girl."
While often stereotyped as a sign of uncertainty or lack of intelligence, linguistic research indicates that HRT serves pragmatic functions such as floor-holding (indicating the speaker has more to say) and seeking listener confirmation.