re:Tim and Judging "the game inside the game"

[Josh Hoe <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>]

> To whom are you referring? I am not aware of anyone wanting to hide a
> discussion of ethics in debate. No one to my knowledge has made a legal
> threat. Knowing the law is dramatically different from violating the law. It
> seems to me that it is empowering to know the legal environment--- then you
> can make an INFORMED decision about your behavior. The choice of expression
> is still yours. 

Prof Meany - 

I did not intend this post to be a response to your post including the Damus 
information. I do not consider that to be inflammatory or inappropriate. 
What I am angry about is the usage of this information in other posts to 
suggest that any discussion about the "incident" (sounds like a code 
word, Matt - remember Pierre has your hat - that bastard 8-) would be bad 
for that reason. They are not stopping at providing the information - 
they are making veiled threats as to the applicability of such 
information. See the post that I responded to (specifically the paragraph 
I included) to see an example.

Sorry about the confusion - with these clarifiers I stand by my posted 
opinion.

Aaron Klemz

---

• Prev by Date: Re: What I believe in...
• Next by Date: Re: Evidence and ethics
• Prev by thread: Re No Strds for Context?
• Next by thread: Ethics and Morons
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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