Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780!jim
From: jim@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <37400013@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 19:39:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.37400013
Posted: Sun Dec  1 19:39:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 15:22:09 EST
References: <7800718@inmet.UUCP>
Lines: 54
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800718:ISM780:37400013:177600:3097
Nf-From: ISM780!jim    Dec  1 19:39:00 1985


>(3) It is the *selection* of data  that  you  really  object  to.
>Remember  the  Marshal  Ogarkov episode ? There, I posted a *com-
>pletely* bare fact. You greeted it even more violently than  this one.
>        ---Factophobia, all right.

I already responded to this, but it really bothers me, since it is so
blatantly false and so ad hominem.  If I object to the *context* in which you
post a datum, or your *interpretation* of a datum, you can always avoid the
objection with this sort of ad hominem (rejecting an argument because of some
characteristic of the arguer) response.  But the fact of the matter is
that I made it perfectly clear at the time what my objections were:

	Well, if you would provide the quote in context, maybe we could judge
	the interpretation better.

	>But are you sure *you* are not now dismissing valid evidence  be-
	>cause it does not fit *your* preconceptions ?

	I have great deal of trouble determining just what the fragment of
	a quote is evidence *of*.  Even if it means that some Soviet marshal
	sees Nicaragua as a tool for Soviet foreign policy, I'm not sure what
	that says about the Nicaraguan government, if anything.

To claim that I reject the *selection* of data is completely ad hominem and
unsupported.  I didn't simply deny it, as people did with the statement
that "We will bury you!" was misinterpreted; rather I said what my
reservations were and requested clarification.  When you post something
much like "... there was Cuba, now there are Granada and Nicaragua,
and a struggle is going on in El Salvador" is it really so biased of me to
question the context and the significance when it is something that a
socialist anywhere in world might say in various contexts, not just a Soviet
Marshal?  To call this a "bare fact" is misleading in the extreme.  I should
at the very least be *curious* about what the "..." is and why it wasn't
included, shouldn't I?  Since you labeled it "To put things in perspective:"
you are certainly suggesting an interpretation or at the least a point of
view, aren't you?  Not a "*completely*" bare fact.  If this were *science*
you would not be criticizing my skepticism.  I am not trying to suppress you,
I want you to elaborate and be explicit.  But you appear to be trying to
suppress or discourage criticism.

You mentioned UN votes, but haven't been specific.  I will welcome such
*evidence*, but I may not agree with your *interpretation* of what it
indicates.  I believe it is failure to agree with your interpretation that
you are labeling as "objection to selection".  Such objection would be rather
pointless, since the material has already been posted.  The only real form
that objection to selection can take is *censorship*, which is something I am
very much against (oh, and I just know someone will say "What about La
Prensa?", but for the 100th time not being for the overthrow of a sovereign
nation is not the same as being for their press censorship, which I oppose).
I challenge you to show that I have ever prevented anyone from saying
anything in any form.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)