4 ms·
This article really needs more evidence supporting its views. Just restating the claims of the report isn't enough. For example, the third claim is that MIT cla
by zck 13y ago
This article really needs more evidence supporting its views. Just restating the claims of the report isn't enough. For example, the third claim is that MIT claims no one cared until aaronsw's suicide. Citing protests by students, open letters by faculty, or articles by alumni would sufficiently refute the report, which is DH5^1. As it stands, this article is just contradicting, which is DH3, and much less convincing.
[1]http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- aidenn0 13y agoI don't think they are even doing a DH3; they aren't claiming that MIT is lying. I think it is rather: "Here are excuses offered up by MIT for its behavior, even assuming they are true, it's lame"
- darkarmani 13y agoThat would be true if we were all uneducated about the issue, but that fact nearly everyone can agree that those claims are ridiculous means adding piles of proof would only bloat the article. For example, what would you have them refute of this statement? "Prosecutors said that Swartz bringing MIT personnel into hearings and trials was like re-victimizing a rape survivor."