Re: Rogers' response

[Jack Rogers <Jack_Rogers%UT_TYLER@notes.worldcom.com>]

"IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT"  

Because random is honest and MPJ seems to suggest that I am getting something 
that I am not. Yes, it is always a disadvantage to know less than someone else, 
but in the case of disad #1, the illusion is that I am getting to decrease the 
impacts of that ignorance by making choices.  My argument here is that they are 
empty choices.  In the case of disad #2, grant that mutual nonpreference is 
better than random in some cases.  However, this dosen't answer the press that 
we still create two pools of "A" judges that makes it increasingly difficult as 
the out rounds loom near to select mutually prefered judges.  Hence, the out 
rounds might be "doomed" to all "C" choices?

---

• Prev by Date: serious, controversial issues
• Next by Date: The grinch that stole the (-: person
• Prev by thread: Re: Rogers' response
• Next by thread: Re: Rogers' response
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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