Joe:<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div>
<div>I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Cool Kwanzaa, Fun Festivus, etc.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
First, I didn't "assert" what you say I asserted -- not anymore than<br>
you did. Like you, I quoted it from someone else. I no more asserted<br>
what you said I did than you did.<br>
<br>
Second, you HAVE more or less claimed that a "given department at WSU<br>
<div>was providing analysis and perspective" that was "much less<br>
</div>intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was provided" by<br>
others. My job comes up on the V about once every two weeks. It seems<br>
to be a favorite topic among my critics. You just mentioned something<br>
about it, Roger Falen has recently mentioned something about it, and<br>
not too long about Darrell Keim mentioned something about it. Both you<br>
and Jeff Harkins bring it up often and in each case there is the<br>
insinuation that I do my job poorly, that since I reason poorly and<br>
carelessly I must be a bad logic teacher, etc.<br>
<br>
I have over 300 students a year at WSU and about 10 students each year<br>
from UI. If the argument below is cogent -- that by saying the pundits<br>
at Fox were "much less intelligent than others" someone is<br>
automatically saying the viewers are unintelligent; and if your<br>
analogy is correct and this can be extended to the case of teaching --<br>
that by saying someone is a bad teacher it implies that their students<br>
are bad students -- then you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins have all<br>
said that WSU and UI students are unintelligent, stupid, and as you<br>
say "inept."<br>
<br>
Is that your view now? That you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins asserted<br>
that WSU and UI students are "inept"? Or would you rather admit that<br>
the argument below is a pretty bad argument and that the conclusions<br>
you drew previously were unwarranted?</blockquote></div><br></div>