Re: Reply to Meany

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

>I wrote a paper (with Bob Branham) for an SCA panel (w/ Bill Shanahan, David
Hingstman, >and Steve Dolley) about 10 years ago on the issue...NO ONE was
interested in examining
>the issue then or since."

I think you are wrong about the "since". It seems to me that people VERY much
want to examine the issue.

>Your posting exclusively considers the needs and rights of a speaker. It
does
>not consider the needs or rights of any victim.

Which victim? How about the victim of a card taken out of context? How about
the entire community as a victim if credibility goes out the window due to
bad cards. I'm not sure who the "victim" is in all of this.

>Re your claim "I think it is pretty obvious which way he is leaning." 

>I have consistently supported ethical decision-making, informed choice, and
>consideration of the interests of all parties. If that is obvious, fine. If
>that is not so obvious, I've just made it clear to the literalists.

Hmmmm, I still don't see where you say that you support an in-depth
discussion of ethical standards for evidence on the  L . If the  L  is the pro
blem, what forum would you suggest the discussion take place? If ethical
standards for evidence is the problem, where do you see us heading
(considering the number of cases coming to light recently) in the future? If
you have no problem with a community discussing ethical standards for
evidense, please feel free to join in the thread.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Reply to Meany
• Next by Date: Ultimate Fighting Challenge-Bob
• Prev by thread: Re: Reply to Meany
• Next by thread: Ultimate Fighting Challenge-Bob
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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