Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[technizmo <technizmo@yahoo.com>]

>--- Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>At 03:07 AM 4/17/2001, DPF wrote:

>>Difficult to understand though is in the eye of the
beholder.

>In fact that is not correct.  There are plenty of
objective and valid 
>ways to assess comprehension difficult.  It is easy
enough, in fact, that 
>Microsoft Word has a tool for assessing readability.

Comprehension does not equal readability.  Also, both
comprehension and readability are subjective.  The
fact that there are many different ways to assess
comprehension illustrates the measurement's
subjectivity.  Which type of assessment a person uses
to measure readability or comprehension is based upon
personal bias.  For example, a person may believe that
counting the average number of syllables per word and
words per sentence (a la MSWord) in a document is not
a good way to determine readability or comprehension.
Issuing a blanket statement that something is
'difficult to understand' can only be taken as a
personal opinion (hence 'eye of the beholder'), as not
all people nor all measurements of comprehension will
agree on that point.


>>>Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent. 
He seeks to criticize
>>>ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every
turn.  His motives might
>>>be less clear, though the instant he starts getting
public exposure for his
>>>efforts, then it is clear that he is serving to
promote his career.

>Prof. Froomkin seeks ONLY to criticize and he
manipulates facts towards his 
>arguments.  That is called "not playing fair".

Since you admit that you cannot determine the motives
for Prof. Froomkin's actions, it is illogical for you
to conclude that he "seeks ONLY to criticize."  You
have no idea what it is he seeks to do.  It would have
been more apt to say that Prof. Froomkin's past
opinions have been critical of ICANN, as they have
been documented.  No one knows whether his next
opinion will be critical or congratulatory.

Criticism and the inclusion of facts to support such
argument are essential in an opinion paper.  To use
such dastardly techniques in composing one is not only
'playing fair' but is necessary.

The fact that Prof. Froomkin has been solely critical
of ICANN in the past only shows that his position has
not wavered over time.  It is not a determinant of his
future actions.


>1.  A constructive participant is not ONLY a critic. 
A constructive 
>participant shows behavior that is contingent.  The
positions they take 
>depends upon the matters under discussion.  If they
only attack and 
>never support, they have some agenda other that
constructive participation.

Wrong.  You are speculating on a person's motivation
and future actions.  Also, it is not a requirement
that a person's positions be on the whole
compromising in order to be constructive.  It is only
a requirement that one should respect other positions,
not that one should be 'wishy-washy' with his/her own,
in respect to different issues.

-jason graff




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html