----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:54 PM
Subject: thoughts on the "landmines" debate
> 3. It is possible for credible sources to disagree. An anti-landmine
> activist, for instance, would be more interested in the second of the two
> questions above, and might credibly argue that the benefit to the US of
> having landmines in the Korean DMZ are insufficient to outweigh the
> benefits of a global landmine ban. The Pentagon in its turn might
> credibly argue that the benefits of those mines for American personnel are
> sufficient to justify an exception to an otherwise global ban.
>
I appreciate you analysis, Marvin, and think that it summarized much of what
I wanted to say too. I'd just like to add that is discussing the
credibility of sources, I do not use a binary function: credible vs. having
no credibility. I use weighing functions, with plusses and minuses attached
to various factors.
I developed this technique during years of troubleshooting field problems
were honest hardworking dedicated people have "proven" things that ended up
being not as they had proven. This technique allowed me to find problems
that I would not have found if I treated all reports equally or if I just
chose one as right.
Dan M.
