[Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

[Darrell Keim]

Joe:

You will recall I made it QUITE clear that I have no opinion regarding how
well you do your job.  Comments I have made are limited strictly to how you
presented yourself in a recent debate.  I am well aware that people can
present very differently professionally from how they present on a listserv.

I do stand by my prior comment that you should consider using a different
email address.  Having your profession in your e-address does seem to
indicate it is fair game for discussion.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Cool Kwanzaa, Fun
Festivus, etc.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> First, I didn't "assert" what you say I asserted -- not anymore than
> you did. Like you, I quoted it from someone else. I no more asserted
> what you said I did than you did.
>
> Second, you HAVE more or less claimed that a "given department at WSU
> was providing analysis and perspective" that was "much less
> intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was provided" by
> others. My job comes up on the V about once every two weeks. It seems
> to be a favorite topic among my critics. You just mentioned something
> about it, Roger Falen has recently mentioned something about it, and
> not too long about Darrell Keim mentioned something about it. Both you
> and Jeff Harkins bring it up often and in each case there is the
> insinuation that I do my job poorly, that since I reason poorly and
> carelessly I must be a bad logic teacher, etc.
>
> I have over 300 students a year at WSU and about 10 students each year
> from UI. If the argument below is cogent -- that by saying the pundits
> at Fox were "much less intelligent than others" someone is
> automatically saying the viewers are unintelligent; and if your
> analogy is correct and this can be extended to the case of teaching --
> that by saying someone is a bad teacher it implies that their students
> are bad students -- then you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins have all
> said that WSU and UI students are unintelligent, stupid, and as you
> say "inept."
>
> Is that your view now? That you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins asserted
> that WSU and UI students are "inept"? Or would you rather admit that
> the argument below is a pretty bad argument and that the conclusions
> you drew previously were unwarranted?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101222/da3820a0/attachment.html