I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly never a diliberate attempt at distortion.
Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you better have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation.
On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not work for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you in one case here. How many other times have you done this?
With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your hobby, I don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve.
I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you might want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of intellectual dishonesty.
If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses.
At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like you.
One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without factual support qualify as embellishments.
I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting you to respect them, if you want.
No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious.
RMc
malmo
> From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 02:20:09 CDT
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto
>
> Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm
> an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC
> whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a
> partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is
> start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means
> that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with
> your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on
> the messenger rather than the message. Sorry that you've had to stoop so low.
>
> RMc
>
> At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really
> >are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley
> >regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit
> >to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now.
> >
> >malmo
Again, I can only point out that you seem to be completely unable to refute the merits of my arguments, and thus you have stooped to name calling as your last resort. I'll leave to others to determine the final outcome of this debate.
RMc
