I offer two further comments: Re Andrew's previous post (I attempted an answer to both John and AK's posts together in an effort to cut down on the number of posts that I was authoring): Andrew has not offered "proof". He has put forward disturbing allegations. I would have to see the original documents themselves -- as *both* John and AK suggested and, if possible, to hear a counter-explanation from the _RRPE_ before coming to any conclusion. Or do you think that what *you* take to be "proof" should be accepted as "proof" without any further regard for fact-gathering. Nonetheless, I found the claims that he made to be disturbing. It is very unclear to me, though, whether there were one or two incidents in which TSSI authors were treated unfairly or whether there was a *pattern* by the _RRPE_ of rejecting submissions by TSSI advocates _because_ the submissions were submitted by members of that group or because they failed to meet other legitimate criteria for publication. So, am I willing to be convinced. Re Andrew's 5044 (below): The unjustified hostility of the following is cause for me to not respond further. And, in *this* case, he can label this as "non-responsive". I will be non-responsive here because I object when after being the only person outside of TSS to even attempt to offer an answer to his question about "proof" re this issue and where I have been basically the *only* person outside of TSS to be willing to listen to AK and others about the details of this charge -- which others have treated like a hot potato -- I am treated with the following. So I will not respond to the following because I have attempted to deal with AK and John in good faith on this matter and won't respond given his accusatory tone. John or others from the TSSI - in fact, anyone other than AK: I am willing to hear more from you in person or by e-mail. (AK's response reminds me, once again, of the wisdom of the old saying that no good deed ever goes unpunished). As for the last sentence, AK has now put forward a *real* self-immunization: one can't look at so-called "evidence" until one agrees on what constitutes proof. As John has pointed out, and as AK has not responded to, proving discrimination is notoriously difficult. There are no rigid definitions of what would constitute "suppression". Instead, all one can do is examine evidence, hear from all concerned parties, and exercise reason to separate the facts from the claims. As AK should well know, there is no court that offers any standard criteria that establish whether such a claim of "suppression" has been "proved". If you're not satisfied with that answer, then ... oh, well..... Lastly, since he accuses me of "evading" (even though all I wanted to do was to cut down on my posts so that list volume wouldn't increase exponentially): we indeed do have recent evidence of "evading" -- it concerns the on-going evasions by AK over the clear and unambivalent quotes by Marx that Fred brought forward concerning what can cause changes in prices of production in Marx's theory. Or did you think that we were simply going to forget about that issue? In solidarity, Jerry PS: I apologize to all concerned about the quantity of posts that I have authored. A new computer, a temporary decrease in my working hours, and over-enthusiasm about certain issues are the reason. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 1:45 AM Subject: [OPE-L:5044] RE: The RRPE Controversy > In reply to OPE-L 5040. > > Jerry's "response" is completely non-responsive. He put forth > criteria for *proof* of discrimination at the hands of the RRPE. > John Ernst and I countered with why his criteria were > unreasonable, and we (especially I) offered alternative criteria > and evidence for the *proof* of discrimination. I asked Jerry > whether he would consider my criteria and evidence to constitute > *proof*. > > He has not replied. > > What he writes, instead, is "I am > willing to look at *any* evidence. > Bring it forward." > > Once you "look at" it, then what? You can always say -- through > some ex post immunizing strategy -- that it doesn't constitute > proof. To guard against that, we need to agree on criteria ahead > of time, and the evidence then needs to be assessed in relation to > these criteria. Why are you suddenly evading the issue of WHAT > constitutes proof? > > I've already told you what is contained in the evidence. If I > produce it, are you willing to acknowledge that suppression has > occurred? If not, why not? I suspect that you have no reasonable > argument against accepting as proof the evidence I've told you > about, but you also don't want to have to admit that suppression > has occurred, so you've decided to quietly duck out of discussing > WHAT constitutes proof. > > Once we agree on criteria, then you get to see the evidence. Not > before.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST