[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Haefele
Dan Dilsaver's post was anything but demeaning of CEDA. Perhaps
if you had been judging both over the last decade you'd realize that
there's something to his analysis. NDT has, until very recently, had
better cards and better analysis. CEDA has clearly made some
tremendous strides and I simply read Dan's post as an attempt to
continue the curve of improvement.
If admitting that there's room for improvement is too demeaning
for you then all I can say is that you are the one needing to open
his eyes.
Any reasons why you might be opposed to 9-3-6, or were you just
showing up to repair your ego?
Bear
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to: HAEFELE@macalester.edu
> From: HAEFELE@macalester.edu
> To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> 25 Aug 1996 14:19:00 -0600 (CST)@
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:16:38 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: Dan dilsaver
> To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
> Message-id: <01I8P27BIS0E00A7SC@macalester.edu>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> Dan Dilsaver's comment regarding what constitutes evidence in NDT versus the
> implied CEDA is insulting and demonstrates shocking ignorance about the quality
> of evidence in CEDA.
>
> Make sure you know what you're talking about before you open your mouth, pal.
>
> Jim Haefele
> Macalester College
>
>Michael "Bear" Bryant Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics Home: 801-399-4253
Department of Communication Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University Fax: 801-626-7975
Ogden, UT 84408-1605 AOL: MWBRYANT@AOL.COM
Prodigy:SRGL57A@PRODIGY.COM
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page