In this case, we have evidence that it did not occur. Andy Frishkoff,
who is in a position to know, has posted a definitive answer.
He said L&I was just doing its job, and he was proud of the job it has
done on this project.
We also have evidence posted by me that ticket sweeps in general have
dramatically increased in the city, in such numbers that no one
organization like UCD, covering just 3% of the city, could possibly
account for all this increase. Hence, Occam's razor holds. Given
incomplete information, the simplest working explanation is the best. In
this case: tickets are up in University City because tickets are up in
Philadelphia, and University City (perhaps to the amazement of some) is
part of Philadelphia.
Further evidence may always turn up that Andy's statement is incorrect
or inadequate. But it's not Andy's job to turn up further evidence that
he's correct. The burden of proof now falls on accusers. If they don't
have any proof, then they have nothing further of value to say in this
instance. They are free to continue to be suspicious; but they cannot
assert that their very suspicions are proof that their suspicions are
well-founded.
Appealing to other cases in previous years is no form of proof at all.
The fact the Teapot Dome Scandal of 1922 was improper, does not
constitute evidence that the Whitewater Scandal of 1993 was improper.
Cheers,
-- Tony West
E.g.:
So assuming that L&I sweeps were prompted by an organization such as UCD (or
someone associated) is not far fetched, and is just as likely to have occurred as
not.
As for evidence, there is rarely any evidence unless you're there, and since
some people believe it's more likely than not, they require evidence that it
did not occur.
Darco
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
