3 ms·

Point 4 of your summary is not entirely unbiased -- it's still not clear whether the emails show that numbers are truly being fudged or that truly critical data

by Elepsis 17y ago

Point 4 of your summary is not entirely unbiased -- it's still not clear whether the emails show that numbers are truly being fudged or that truly critical data has been deleted on purpose. Because the meaning of the emails is unclear, it is what's being debated in all of these articles. Do the mails indeed show manipulation, lying and a consensus that "something is very wrong"? That's not a closed question.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I consider that part of the argument that emails can be taken out of context Like I said, it was the best I could come up with. Prima facie, something is wrong somewhere.
- pohl 17y ago
  That's exactly why #4 is not unbiased. You say in point #5 that those who seek more context prior to judgement are from the end-is-nigh camp. Reasonable people who are not in that camp also think the emails may have a very different meaning in their true context. Otherwise, great summary.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Thanks. I used the term "prima facie" on purpose, because it's very apt here. It roughly means "on first glance" or "on the surface". IANAL, but as I understand it, it's a way of saying "just glancing at the evidence here, it certainly looks like X" The interesting part about this term is that it's all subjective. So as soon as one lawyer uses it, the appropriate response is to say, "but wait a minute! You're taking this out of context, words have more than one meaning, there was nuance involved, you're twisting what was actually said, etc." I provided #4 the way I would provide it to anybody on any side of the discussion. I understand the appropriate reply is to get into meanings and nuance -- and I don't mean that as a slam. At some point it gets silly, such as in the famous "it depends on what you mean by the word 'is'" but we're nowhere near there yet. The problem is that the requester asked somebody to explain it to him. As "somebody", I felt it appropriate to explain what I found prima facie and also my bias. In highly emotional environments I've found that it's impossible to strike the right tone. Apologies if I could have done better.

by Elepsis 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I consider that part of the argument that emails can be taken out of context Like I said, it was the best I could come up with. Prima facie, something is wrong somewhere.

pohl 17y ago
That's exactly why #4 is not unbiased. You say in point #5 that those who seek more context prior to judgement are from the end-is-nigh camp. Reasonable people who are not in that camp also think the emails may have a very different meaning in their true context. Otherwise, great summary.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Thanks. I used the term "prima facie" on purpose, because it's very apt here. It roughly means "on first glance" or "on the surface". IANAL, but as I understand it, it's a way of saying "just glancing at the evidence here, it certainly looks like X" The interesting part about this term is that it's all subjective. So as soon as one lawyer uses it, the appropriate response is to say, "but wait a minute! You're taking this out of context, words have more than one meaning, there was nuance involved, you're twisting what was actually said, etc." I provided #4 the way I would provide it to anybody on any side of the discussion. I understand the appropriate reply is to get into meanings and nuance -- and I don't mean that as a slam. At some point it gets silly, such as in the famous "it depends on what you mean by the word 'is'" but we're nowhere near there yet. The problem is that the requester asked somebody to explain it to him. As "somebody", I felt it appropriate to explain what I found prima facie and also my bias. In highly emotional environments I've found that it's impossible to strike the right tone. Apologies if I could have done better.