DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-05-06 17:30:48 EDT, you write:
<< LOL, find and adjective and then pick your noun??? Nice work if you can
get it. Sorry, but you can play the role of the apologist here. Terry's
initial note, subject AND message, clearly made the claim that the hoax
was on the part of the researchers. Everyone, including yourself, pointed
out to him that his opinion was incorrect. Some used stronger words than
you did. <BG> >>
The only way this could have been correctly labeled a hoax on the part of the
researchers is if the research itself had not been done, had not been done as
reported, and/or had not yielded the results reported. There is no evidence
that any of those "if" statements are true. Ergo, no hoax
The only way it could -- even stretching the language to its limits and beyond
-- be labeled a hoax on the part of the media is if they had made up the
story, misquoted the researchers, misstated the methodology or misstated the
results. There is no evidence that any of those statements are true either.
IMO what we have here is an interesting and promising development that has
unfortunately been reported in the popular media in such a way that those
unfamiliar with research did not understand it. The very first reports we
read and heard all had the "two years until human testing" caveat attached.
I'm sure people missed that, and it's not surprising that they did. But it
was there.
Language has parameters; it is not infinitely elastic. And "hoax" means
deliberately deluding.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
