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 18:55:41 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#I don't think so.  The article expired here, but I asked specifically
#what it did, and I can't see "building nukes" as being an answer, because
#it has not done that for years. 

You mean you DON'T know what the DoE does? Than how do know Clintons
choice does not have the experience to run the DoE?

As to what you "see", perhaps you should get new glasses.

#Not much of a debate, if the only "right" answer doesn't live anyplace
#but in your wishes and dreams.  Sorry, but not interested.

The discussion is over your implication that Clintons choice to head
the DoE does not have the experience for that post. In order to
determine what expericence is necessary for the job, it is necessary
to determine what the job is. The "wishes and dreams" of citizens of
the USA are important, and even more important is what Clinton wishes
the job of the DoE to be.

#The funny part is, I ask a question, you answer, then you disagree with me
#on something that was not part of either. Very odd...

Very odd if that is what is happening. But it isn't.

#Watch closely:  
#	1. The DoE does not, and has not for years, "built nukes" (you said 2)
#	1.a It has, however, for those years had the facilities as the
#	    primary item in its budget. (your answer to my first question)

Query: If the DoE ISN'T in the business of building nukes, why is it
trying to restart the facilities, instead of simply closing it down?

#Why?  Because I asked waht IS, and you want to debate on what you wish?
#Since you cannot verify the truth of your wishes, why should we
#enter into a debate that has no termination?

You did more than ask what is. You are making repeated claims that the
Clinton nominee does not have the experience to run the DoE. I am not
asking to debate on "my wishes" so stop claiming I am. I debating what
experience is neccessary to run the DoE. You are being pompous and
sophomoric in refusing to answer direct questions, and raising red
herrings. 

#Unfortunately, he does not appear to constrain himself to his words.
#Ask the citizens of Arkansas.  I gave you a specific example (which
#you deleted). 

Clinton DID ask the citizens are Arkansas. They supported his running
for president. I deleted your "specific" example because it was not
relevent to the issue.

#}I would like
#}you to answer this question.
#
#Heck, there was a 1/3 page article in the Washington Post a few days
#ago.

Hmm, still not answering the question. Shucking and dodging. Jim, I
used to respect you. If you won't even answer a simple question, my
respect is gone.

#Interesting, though, that while
#you say that the $ goes to the facilities and that they don't build
#nukes you will not agree to the conclusion that the money is being spent.

I never said that the money was not being spent. Are you fantasing
again? Or are you imagining a different argument than the one I am
making.

#No.  YOUR issue may be that.  I never mentioned it, nor do I see a
#way to debate something now for which there is no evidence obtainable.

But you have no qualms about claiming that Clinton is appointing
someone without experience to run the DoE. Hmm, I suspect a secret
agenda. :^) 

#I don't. Is is.  Isn't isn't.  Is isn't isn't.  Isn't isn't is.

Brilliant logic, Jim. Spend all night working on that one?

#Except for the minor detail that the person nominated does not have
#any experience with the primary task of the department for which she was
#appointed...

Oh, what is the primary task of the DoE? Please support your
contention that Clinton's nominee does not have the experience. 

#Oh goody.  Since you reference the Post you probably have a copy of the
#article I mentioned.  Go read it.

No, I don't. 

#Ah, but I do NOT agree. 

Jim, about four messages ago I asked a yes or no question on if the
term mattered, and you replied "no". Are you now changing your answer?

#}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.
#
#Hows about this one:  you can put an aircraft carrier in Japan or
#australia, but you cannot put a nuclear bomb there (overtly).

And that is an arguement that the DoE should build the bomb rather
than the DoD? Somehow I find the logic less than compelling. Want to
try again?

#Hence, what Clinton
#said does not fit into the rest of your paragraph.  Were you attempting a
#misdirection?

Nope. I assumed that you knew Clinton would shortly be president. I
apogogize for making that unwarrented assumption.

#}And you are being pedantic to the point of being annoying.
#
#Excuse me for wanting accuracy.  I am sorry that you find reality annoying.

I find unecessary pedantry to be annoying. 

#Which is why I have done neither, but asked you for YOU statement
#of facts.  BTW:  "qualifications" for an indeterminate task is an opinion.

Experience for an indeterminate task is also an opinion.

But wait, you claimed to be dealing in facts, not opinions. I guess
you were wrong.

#Because you brought it up.  I will acknowledge you statement that the
#nuclear facilities are #1 on the DoE budget (you did say that). 

Horray! After three days you finally answer!

I'll alert the media.

Err, and Jim *YOU* brought up the budget item, not me.

#You
#then claimed there were other important things.  I ask what, and now
#you want me to find your answer?  Wrong.

What I asked you to answer was YOUR question, not mine.

#When you want to use opinion rather than verifiables?  No thank you.
#I am not going to read your mind to give you your answers.

You are clining to the false beleif that "experience for running the
DoE from 1993 onward" is a verifiable.

#}There is never a 100 percent correlation between what anyone says and
#}what they do. Does that mean you trust nobody about anything?
#
#For a matter of life or death?  No.  Why are you "he will because he said"?

Err, how is the head of the DoE a life or death matter? To whom?

#Beats me.  I didn't ask aboiut experience for somnething that doesn't exist now.
#I was talking about the Department of Energy, not La-La land.

#I'll be glad to talk about reality.  I am not interested in trying to read
#your mind to get the right answers for your wishes of the future.  If
#you care for a reality check, I'll reply.  

But you don't give reality. You give opinions and claim they are fact.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc