Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!yale!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? Message-ID: <39000033@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 20:17:00 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000033 Posted: Tue Nov 26 20:17:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 01:15:20 EST References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP> Lines: 94 Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800672:ISM780B:39000033:000:4336 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Nov 26 20:17:00 1985 /* Written 11:32 am Nov 25, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ [Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >>>> [I posted an economic statistic about women's jobs and wages >>>> with the title "Equality through Reaganomics ? "] >[Mike Huybensz] >>>>Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly >>>>hidden in the title. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your >>>>reasoned conclusion from this quotation. > >>>Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu- >>>lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*. > >>I love this "may be". It is a true statement. >>So would "may not be". [examples] > >"may be", in context, means "plausible, and worth examination". >*That is what I posted it for*. You said it was an obvious reasoned conclusion. You didn't give "may not be" the same status. How about providing some analysis that shows how the data supports the conclusion? My whole point is that you are "leading the witness" by suggesting plausible explanations without supporting them, just as Von Daniken does, which is why I mentioned "Chariots of the Gods". >>I forget the name of this little rhetorical technique, but the intent >>is to mislead by insinuation. Dangerous little minds will take your >>your empty statement as a *conclusion*. You are waging a disinformation >>campaign. > >*You* know all about *my* intent. Good for you. Let me make a >guess at yours. It was not my carefully guarded *conclusion* that >sent you flaming. It was the little *fact*. You are afraid *it* >will lead "little minds" off the straight and narrow. You are >waging a censorship campaign. Pardon me, but I have an informed opinion about your intent. Now, since I have been talking about your mode of presentation, not about the facts presented, where does your guess come from? I have no fear of the fact. I have no fear of conclusions reached from it through logic. But I despise dishonest rhetoric. I will take no legal action to stop same, nor will I encourage the filtering out of your comments, nor anything else that constitutes censorship, which I oppose. But I will continue to call a spade a spade. Others can draw their own opinions. >>>Of course there are other factors involved [...] >>>That is why I added the (?). > >"Science begins and ends with a question". But which questions are asked determines the direction in which science progresses. >>Like in the "Is it possible ...?" case that is ignored by small minds >>who are just looking for something that agrees with their beliefs. >>And surely you weren't aiming your comments at people you knew wouldn't >>buy them? > >I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something that >perhaps *disagrees* with their beliefs. You know, people big >enough to *change their mind* once in a while. Better still, >the discussion might help me change *mine* . Economists were the >people I mostly hoped to draw out. I can accept this, but by labeling the *fact* with your *conclusion* or *interpretation*, whether with a question mark or not, limits the direction of thought. >I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un- >popular. I can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to >keep to a party line. >This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity. >I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control, >suppress, and direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not >wish you luck. Getting pretty hostile, eh? Can't take a little criticism, eh? I suspect we both do a bit of enlightening as well as obfuscating and controlling. In my life I have been known more for the former than the latter. I do wish you luck, in learning to challenge your own preconceptions as well as all other aspects of quality of life that people deserve. I share your wish that I do not succeed in any sort of suppression. If you think that strong expressions of disagreement are suppression, then you don't know what the word means. As for control, I wish to exert some control over my own life and fate, but I have steadfastly avoided the means of control over others. Again, I'm not sure you know what the word means. As for direction, we can all use some. I hope neither of us is successful in *mis*direction. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)