On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:38:59 -0800, Irving Scheffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
> >Scheffe) wrote:
> >
> >My comments are written as responses to the technical
> >comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
> >since I omit redundancy and mostly ignore his 'venting.'
> >I think I offer a little different perspective on my previous posts.
> >
> >[ snip, intro. ]
>
> Mr. Ulrich's latest post is a thinly veiled ad hominem, and
> I'd urge him to rethink this strategy, as it does not
> present him in a favorable light.
- I have a different notion of ad-hominem, since I think it is
something directed towards 'the person' rather than at the
presentation. Or else, I don't follow what he means by 'thinly
veiled.'
When a belligerent and nasty and arrogant tone seems to be
an essential part of an argument, I don't consider myself to be
reacting 'ad-hominem' when I complain about it -- it's not that I
hate to be ad-hominem, but I don't like to be misconstrued.
I'm willing, at times, to plunk for the 'ad-hominem'.
For instance, since my last post on the subject, I looked at those
reports. Also, I searched with google for the IWF -- who printed the
anti-MIT critiques. I see the organization characterized as an
'anti-feminist' organization, with some large funding from Richard
Scaife. 'Anti-feminist' could mean a reasoned-opposition, or a
reflex opposition. Given these papers, it appears to me to qualify as
'reflex' or kneejerk opposition. Oh, ho! I say, this explains where
the arguments came from, and why Jim keeps on going --
Now, THIS PARAGRAPH is what I consider an ad-hominem argument.
And I'll give you some more.
Scaife is a paranoid moneybags and publisher who infests this
Pittsburgh region (which is why I have noticed him more than a
westerner like Coors). His cash was important in persecuting Clinton
for his terms in office. For example, Scaife kept alive Victor
Foster's suicide for years. He held out money for anyone willing to
chase down Clinton-scandals. Oh, he funded the chair at Pepperdine
that Starr had intended to take.
Now: My comment on the original reports: I am happy to say that it
looks to me as if MIT is setting a good model for other universities
to follow. The senior administrator listens to his faculty,
especially his senior faculty, and responds.
MIT makes no point about numbers in their statements, and it
does seem to be wise and proper that they don't do so.
I see now, Jim is not really arguing with MIT. They won't argue back.
Jim's purpose is to create a hostile presence, a shadow to threaten
other administrators. He goes, like, "If you try to 'cut a break'
for women, we'll be watching and threatening and undermining,
threatening your job if we can."
I suppose state universities are more vulnerable than the private
universities like MIT. On the other hand, with the numbers that Jim
has put into the public eye, the next administrator can point to the
precedent of MIT and assert that, clearly, the simple numbers on
'quality' are substantially irrelevant to the issues, since they were
irrelevant at MIT.
Hope this helps.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
