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. Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Dept. of Social Sciences Pace University Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA phone: (914) 773-3968 fax: (914) 773-3951 Home: 60 W. 76th St. #4E New York, NY 10023 USA "The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical. It is the critique that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST