RE: META: Dishonest debate (was "cluster bombs")

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 13:18:53 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Damiaso? Re: META: Working Towards a Pledge"

    Dehede011@aol.com wrote,
    > In a message dated 6/13/2003 7:33:59 AM Central Standard Time,
    > mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
    > Amara is assumed to be supportive if she hasn't complained.
    >
    > No Harvey,
    > Amara is assumed to not be terribly insulted or misquoted if she
    > doesn't complain.

    This sounds less extreme, but the logic error is still there. You cannot
    assume anything about anyone based on a lack of information from them.
    There could be a million reasons why someone doesn't respond. This tactic
    can never add information to a debate, while it can frequently lead to
    misunderstandings and accusations of misrepresentation. I maintain that
    this source of information is unsupportable and should not be used in a
    rational debate where the person in question is available for comment if
    they so choose.

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
    Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified
    InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
    <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 13:30:05 MDT