On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Michael Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:54:52 -0800 > raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Really? "Objectively" what we know so far is who the guy has appointed, and >> > the appointments have been, with almost no exception, centrists. On the >> > Middle East, they're outrageously awful. >> > >> I don't disagree. I just don't see how we can infer "purpose" rather >> than "caution" from this which is what Michael Smith suggested. > > Hmmm. Interesting meta-question: Which is the null hypothesis? >
The null hypothesis is the non-cynical, "Maybe this is not some grand conspiracy by Obama to fool progressives who believe in him, but merely the cautious opening steps of someone who finds himself in a position of extraordinary power and responsibility and is understandably anxious not to make a mistake." -raghu. -- The meek shall inherit the earth, if that's OK with you. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
