[Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

[Joe Campbell]

OK. Take your name off the list and the point still stands.

While your at it, tell Crabtree he was wrong for calling liberals and progressives elitists. How about that?

On Dec 22, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joe:
> 
> You will recall I made it QUITE clear that I have no opinion regarding how well you do your job.  Comments I have made are limited strictly to how you presented yourself in a recent debate.  I am well aware that people can present very differently professionally from how they present on a listserv.
> 
> I do stand by my prior comment that you should consider using a different email address.  Having your profession in your e-address does seem to indicate it is fair game for discussion.
> 
> I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Cool Kwanzaa, Fun Festivus, etc.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> First, I didn't "assert" what you say I asserted -- not anymore than
> you did. Like you, I quoted it from someone else. I no more asserted
> what you said I did than you did.
> 
> Second, you HAVE more or less claimed that a "given department at WSU
> was providing analysis and perspective" that was "much less
> intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was provided" by
> others. My job comes up on the V about once every two weeks. It seems
> to be a favorite topic among my critics. You just mentioned something
> about it, Roger Falen has recently mentioned something about it, and
> not too long about Darrell Keim mentioned something about it. Both you
> and Jeff Harkins bring it up often and in each case there is the
> insinuation that I do my job poorly, that since I reason poorly and
> carelessly I must be a bad logic teacher, etc.
> 
> I have over 300 students a year at WSU and about 10 students each year
> from UI. If the argument below is cogent -- that by saying the pundits
> at Fox were "much less intelligent than others" someone is
> automatically saying the viewers are unintelligent; and if your
> analogy is correct and this can be extended to the case of teaching --
> that by saying someone is a bad teacher it implies that their students
> are bad students -- then you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins have all
> said that WSU and UI students are unintelligent, stupid, and as you
> say "inept."
> 
> Is that your view now? That you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins asserted
> that WSU and UI students are "inept"? Or would you rather admit that
> the argument below is a pretty bad argument and that the conclusions
> you drew previously were unwarranted?
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101222/36294868/attachment.html