> Harvey writes
>
> > Wrong. My complaint about the white supremacists was not
> just about the
> > website it appeared on. The "statistics" themselves were
> published by a
> > religious group. They used "prayer" and "divine guidance"
> to interpret
> > their results. My complaint was not with them, their
> website, the website
> > the article appeared on, or any membership affiliation. My
> complaint was
> > that they were using prayer to divine information and then
> pass it off as
> > scientific statistics to refute other scientific
> statistics. They basically
> > faked the results that "God" wanted them to present, rather
> than using any
> > real scientific method to get any real results. This is
> scientific fraud.
> > I see no evidence of such fraud in this latest editorial.
>
Lee Corbin replied:
>
> You see no evidence of such fraud in this latest editorial?
>
> Well, did you see any evidence of fraud *in the text* of the
> posted article?? Sorry to post it again, but here it is.
> Where is the evidence of fraud *here*?? Where are the signs
> of a religious inclination even?? You're not being consistent!
> ---Lee Corbin
Lee, I'm not sure what your goal is here. Do you just desperately want
Harvey to say "You are right, I am wrong"?
I agree with you to some extent, in that the Planet of the Abes article
could not have been fraudulent in its presentation of facts. This because
there are no facts presented in the article that I can find, only
unsupported assertions. The author merely asserts statements as true;
nowhere does he appear to present any evidence to support his claims.
Harvey appears to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that these
assertions are grounded somewhere in something, rather than just made up off
the top of the author's head. Finding no evidence in the article to support
any of the claims, he follows the trail of references, and comes to the
conclusions that he has posted.
I can't see any problem with Harvey's methodology; I am only surprised that
he is prepared to put such a lot of effort into what is, in the end, a
rather stupid opinion piece. If we all spent the time to criticise in detail
every piece of idiotic editorial on the net, we'd die trying, even giving
massive life extension, and no one would benefit from the results. But
that's just my opinion :-P
Finally, can we please put a stop to the ridiculous reposting of
(ridiculous) articles over and over again? Most here are not imbeciles, and
can follow a thread.
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT