Re: Larry Niven: Terrorize Latinos to Solve Health Care Crisis

On 2008-05-05 17:21:08 -0700, John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> On Mon, 5 May 2008 14:04:39 -0700, Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> 
>> Not quite.  It was M-space-Schilling who requested the cite, and
>> Delaney has since suggested that he thinks J-space-Schilling isn't
>> providing it because he can't.
> 
>> And no assumption of cupidity was made in the initial request -- those
>> only came after J-space-Schilling declared the request for a cite
>> insulting.
> 
> Is there a reason you're not willing to use my name here?  Or Mike's?
> It would be one thing if you were using an abbreviation to save time,
> space, and/or bandwidth, but this is just wierd.

When I was in junior high school, I had a computer programming teacher 
named Robert Koetke.  In high school, I had a math teacher, his 
brother, William Koetke.  They referred to ach other as R-space-Koetke 
and W-space-Koetke.  They wrote it as W_KOETKE and R_KOETKE, which 
would have saved space, I guess.

So you're quite right.  It's just weird.

>> Anyway, after that I gave up.  J-space was trying to make a point, but
>> is unwilling to back it up.
> 
> I am perfectly willing to back it up.  I am even willing to be somewhat
> flexible as to the method - but only within limits.  To allow the other
> party to arbitrarily set the terms by which claims may be supported, is
> entirely unacceptable, and not a precedent I am willing to set.

If the terms were being set in a peculiar manner -- you have to stand 
on your head and write it in soap on the window or something -- I'd 
agree that's arbitary.  But if you saw something in a newspaper that's 
got a large website, being asked for a URL doesn't strike me as an 
untoward request.

You clearly disagree that being asked to supply the URL to a recently 
published article is a reasonable request.  So it goes.  Either way, 
the impression I'm left with is that you state that you can supply the 
URL, but you don't actually do it.  If so, then I don't think it's 
wrong to call that "unwillingness."

> That would be a narrowminded assumption.  Sometimes I *want* to be
> insulting.

True enough.

> If community standards are that it is considered always acceptable to
> ask, victory by default if the other guy doesn't comply, and rude for
> the other guy to object, I may have to reevaluate that policy.

I don't assume "victory by default."  I just assume you haven't backed 
up your argument.  That's not victory or defeat, that's simply -- in 
this case, at least -- an unconvincing argument, in my eyes at least.  
'It's insulting to ask for proof' of something easily proven makes me 
less likely to accept the original claim -- it doesn't make me assume 
the other guy's point must be right, but it makes me less likely to 
take yours at face value.

Which is not to say that you have to supply the URL, of course.  You 
seem to be fine with that reaction, so no big deal.

kdb