From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:11:47 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#As you pointed out, the candidate has no experience in the primary
#task of the DoE.  Q.E.D.

False. 

I pointed out that the candidate has no experience in building nukes.
If YOU want to claim that the "primary" task of the DoE  is building
nukes, but I never made that claim. What the primary task of what the
DoE was in the past is not necesarily the primary task of the DoE
TODAY.

#That is nice.  However, what you think may be debated but is not verifiable
#as an actuality.  You may be wrong.

Gee, and that is why I was debating it. The arguments have been

You: Point 1.
Me: yes, but you are making error A in point 1.
You: repeat Point 1
Me: yes, but you are making this error.
You: repeat point 1.

Are you aware you are repeating yourself without adressing my
arguments? Bales would be proud of your tactics.

#}Oh? Why can't I listen to the public statements of Clinton and the
#}nominee? 
#
#For one, have you checked upon the historic correlation between the
#public statements of candidates and their subsequent actions?

Yes. And I have found that Clinton expects his subordiantes to do the
job he tells them to do.

#You also claim to know what they do NOT do i.e. have not "built nukes" for,
#to your information, approximately two years.  Yet, that is still the #1 budget
#item.  The obvious conclusion is that the $ is spent for something
#else, right?

You are the one making the conclusion, not me. I note that you STILL
HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. How about it, for the third time. What
is the #1 budget item? I doubt it says "building nukes". I would like
you to answer this question.

#So you would rather discuss what you think rather than what you acknowledge 
#was what I said.

The issue is what the DoE is going to do in the future, where as what
you said was in regard to its past. Yes, I would rather talk about the
future. 

#When I see the documentation of the actions, then it will be a fact
#worth discussing.  Until then, it is, at best, a campaign promise
#suitably cataloged.

Err, you don't consider appointing a candidate with experience in the
areas under discussion to be something to be discussed?

Oh, yea, you don't. You'd rather accuse Clinton of appointing
inexperienced people rather than admit that the experience needed for
the job changes.

#}But that is not relavent when the job is changing.
#
#And how do you show that?

Jim, pick up a copy of the Post this morning. It has a nice story
about the Start 2 treaty that will probably be signed. We are cutting
the number of warheads bye about 2/3rds. That doesn't count the Start
1 treaty, or the IMF treaty, all of which cut the number of warheads
we need. 

#Simply consider the term
#}modified. My arguements don't change.
#
#Ah, but they do.  In your case, they make you wrong.

No, they don't. Since we both agree that either word will suffice,
changing words can't change the argument.

#And I propose that that difference is why they should be treated differently.

Well, then, demonstrate that these differences are enough to continue
to treat them differently, since the stated reason for the origional
different treatment does not hold any longer.

#}That is a trivial point. Use whatever word you want. Doesn't matter to
#}me. 
#
#Then why did you consistently do so?

I wasn't aware that I was. If I was, it was probably because I can
spell qualifications better than I can spell experience. I always want
to put an 'a' in that latter word . . .

#Other than a campaign promise, please provide concrete evidence that
#this IS occurring.

The number of warheads that the US is legally able to have is
decreasing quite rapidly. Thus the DoE won't need to make nearly as
many, hence the other functions will increase in importance. See, that
wasn't hard. I'm sure you could have reached the same conclusion with
a few seconds thought.

#Oh, really?   When the President says something, you believe it 100%?

Nope. I rarely beleive anyone 100 percent. 95 percent though in this
instance. 

#That is a little, but not much, better than when a candidate campaigning
#says it.  BTW:  Clinton isn't President yet.

Did I say that he was? No.

#You state "stop making" AND you state "hasn't made for years".
#You did not say "geared up to make".

And you are being pedantic to the point of being annoying.

#And why would you believe me?  You haven't for anything else. 

I beleive your stating of facts. I don't believe your opinions.

# Tell you
#what.  If you think something else is so important, post its relative
#position.

Why should I, when you won't answer my requests?

#Aristotle would have been very frustrated with you.  Why not look into
#how you should get someone ELSE to reach a conclusion.  Assume that
#they will dispute anything that you say, hence you must get THEM to
#state the relevant facts and arrive at the conclusions independently.

Why not? Because I consider that a silly little game, and that there
are easier methods of acheiving the same goals. Like you making a good
faith effort to answer my questions, something you haven't done.

#Excuse me for having reality intrude.  Fact:  it isn't happening.

What isn't happening? Reality isn't intruding? :^)

#}The DoE is currently in the business of building nukes, EVEN THOUGH
#}ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAS CAUSED A TEMPORARY STOPPAGE OF THIS ACTIVITY.
#
#Really?  And upon what do you base this?

Statements by Bush, and the past head of the DoE, whose name I can't
remember. 

#Right.  There is, of course, a 100% correlation between what he has
#said and what he has done, and what he has not said and what he has
#not done.  NOT.

There is never a 100 percent correlation between what anyone says and
what they do. Does that mean you trust nobody about anything?

#Interesting.  "Rational discourse" does not include observable facts
#independently verified but does include candidate campaign promises
#and private wishes.  Odd.

Well, observable facts include that Ty Cobb batted .367, and which is
irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, I consider the past behaviour
of an agency to be of less importance than how the new administration
wants to deal with the department. You seem to be stuck in the cold
war. Pity.

#I much prefer objectively verifiables.

Hmm, since neither of us can objectively verify what the DoE will be
doing in the future, how do you tell what experience is necessary to
do that job?



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w