From: mbvg9741@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hmmm. . .)
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:41:28 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>In article <9209050403.AA00183@cfdev1.shearson.com> mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:

>   Clayton Cramer asked why people mistake his views.  I responded that
>   people mistake his views because he uses language similar to those
>   who hold the views that he does not claim as his own.  I said that
>   this might not be right, but is happens.

>   Professor McCarthy mistook what I wrote, so I responded:

>   >> I'd like to believe that Cramer is using a standard definition of
>   >> these words, as opposed to stating them with insidious intent.
>   >> But the fact remains that if he continues to use the same language
>   >> as these fringe groups, people will assume that he is sympathetic
>   >> to their views.  It is a shame, but it is a reality.

>   Professor McCarthy responds with:

>   > I think it is Taranto who is obliged to avoid reading into Cramer's
>   > or anyone else's words meanings different from what he says.

>   I find this amusing -- since he is telling me to do something which I am
>   advocating myself.  We seem to be in agreement here.

>   > To hell with this "insidious intent".  Once that becomes an accepted
>   > consideration, the way is open to every kind of bullying.

>   If Professor McCarthy will reread what I wrote, he will see that I do
>   not believe that there IS insidious intent, and that I was just giving
>   my impression as to why Mr. Cramer is assumed to believe that which
>   he claims he does not.  So, once again we are in agreement.

>   > Mark Taranto can't bully Cramer and he can't bully me, but there
>   > are probably people who will be shy of posting what they want to
>   > say for fear Taranto will find an insidious intent.

>   I believe that this is the first time in my life I have ever been accused
>   of being a bully.  It is a shame that it has to be based on a simple
>   misreading of what I wrote.  Perhaps when Professor McCarthy realizes
>   that we are in agreement, he will once again claim that he did not read the
>   articles, does not know any of the players, and pleads the fifth amendment,
>   as he did the last time I showed him that he was wrong.

>   Are all of Stanford's professors this dotty?

>   Mark

>Let me spell out the part about bullying, so it will be the second
>time in Taranto's life that he has been accused of attempted bullying.

>As I understand what he said, he is telling Cramer and anyone else who
>reads him that it is insufficient to refrain from racism; it is
>necessary to be obsequious enough to the platitudes of the time so
>that no-one can even intentionally misinterpret what you say as
>racist.  Taranto is like one of those Ibsen characters who says that
>it is not enough to be moral; one must appear to be moral.

>Voltaire put Taranto's point this way:  "When one is with wolves, one
>must howl a little."  (I learned to put it this way in college).

>If Taranto doesn't believe Cramer is racist, then he should defend
>Cramer rather than just tell him to kiss a few more asses.  (I learned
>to put it this way in the Army.)

Ah, I love academia!  It's the only place where two people who
essentially agree on an issue can become bitter enemies :-)


>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books