An example of an assertion with a truthful basis that Mueller could have
written would be:
"Although the critique of my study challenged my classification of TM
classes, the critque is wrong for the following reasons . . ."
Mueller instead wrote:
>--there is no challenge to the way the cases were classified.
>Thus, it has been conceded that of the cases we know about,
>the proportions are correct.
The study contains in fact at least four criticisms of the classification
method. There is no
"concession." This is simply a blatant misstatement which Mueller would
not or could not explain.
Then Mueller writes:
"I mistook your silence for a guilty admission of sin."
Guilty admission of sin (as opposed to a guilty admission of innocence?)?
Laying on the "neutral academic" tone pretty thick? If INTA had paid for a
critique of your study (which it didn't), how would that have been a sin?
Finally, in his critique FAQs, Mueller writes:
"As "hired guns" for the trademark lobby, the authors were asked to paint
as bad a picture of the study as possible, even if that involved ignoring
or distorting facts or making purely rhetorical arguments."
This is a blatant untruth and I want you to remove it from Syracuse's web
site. What was the factual basis for making this statement? Were you
reading my mail, tapping my phone, bugging Professor Jacoby's offices? Was
the factual basis your un-confirmed pre-conceived notions? How many other
(erroneous) pre-conceived notions riddle your study?
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
