[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Re ethics and action

> > Well congratulations John, you have succeeded in chilling what should have
> > been some very helpful discourse. For all the postulating you do about the
> > betterment of CEDA, you may have set back progress toward a more ethical
> > organization. I can only assume by your "warning" that you are perfectly
> > happy with evidence being taken out of context. Well, sir, I am not. And amid
> > your veiled threats, I shall continue to speak out against it. Sorry.
> > 
> > Bob Lechtreck
> > Bakersfield College
> > 
> If a "calm" discussion could take place on the listserve then perhaps it 
> would be wise.  However, the individuals who want the discussion to take 
> place ignore all of the legality arguments when pushing the discussion.  
> True, people have talked about the damaged reputations, but they 
> conveinently (sp?) ignore the rest.  Why is this?  Do we think we are 
> immune?  If so wake up because we're not.  Just as we should be 
> responsible for our evidence etc, we ARE responsible for the things we 
> write in a public forum such as the listserve.
> 
> John Johnston

I am truly getting disturbed by this verbal fencing that's going on. i 
have a few comments.

1) We all know what we are talking about.

This is growing tiring. I know what incident is being discussed - I have 
reviewed the "evidence" and I have drawn my own conclusions from it. It 
sickens me that legal threat (vague as though they may be) prevent the 
open discussion of the ethical standard for evidence usage for fear of 
inciting legal action. As to the idea that the "truth exemption" doesn't 
apply to this situation - I have a real hard time stomaching that idea. I 
think, but I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar so I don't KNOW, that that 
is just plain wrong. First of all, the people we are talking (in guarded 
terms, of course) about ARE public figures, the round is videotaped and 
distributed for Christ's sake, the transcript is published, COPYRIGHTED 
and distributed. If any slander were to take place it already has.

2) Everyone's watching out for their own self interests

It isn't so much that I think that's wrong, I do it myself. My point is 
that for all of the high-minded rhetoric of the opponents of such a 
discussion the motive is clear. They know and we all know. Don't 
play like you are trying to act as the guardians of some "civility" that 
we all know doesn't exist.

Just let me say one more thing. I think is truly disturbing that we all 
are walking on eggeshells on this issue. I find it truly sad that those 
who want to keep this discussion from surfacing do so by resorting to 
veiled legal threats. Shame on you all. If you think that you can keep 
people from talking about the incident you are living in a fantasy world. 
Everybody has already formed their own opinion. It is because of that 
that I no longer care to see this issue discussed here. It would be 
useless and it would be irrelevant. I'm just pissed at this childish game.

I guess I better go get a lawyer on retainer. Guess what? Can't get blood 
from a turnip.

Aaron
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page