[Am-info] Re: Auditing the Public Response

[Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.]

> From: Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>
> Hmmm, a substantial difference between zdnet's (paraphased) "7,000
> responses that were indifferent" and cnn's 7000 that were taken as
> opinions like "I hate Microsoft."
> From: John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org>
> My reading of the story is that 7,000 'Microsoft haters' is in addition to
> the 15,000 who were against the settlement so the strength of feeling
> isn't actually explicitly stated anywhere as three to one against Microsoft...
> From: Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>
> I agree with that point, but the issue is, if you don't provide a
> reasonable explanation why you are against the settlement, then you will
> be ignored.  (Microsoft sucks, so don't accept the settlement, just
> doesn't get it)
> From: Sujal Shah <sujal@sujal.net>
> In fact, it's actually brilliantly phrased to the benefit of those
> against the settlement...
> "We ignored the anti-Microsoft camp"

I think Sujal came closest to the salient point: the Bush DOJ has 
taken their leader's stance of claiming the right to ignore as much 
of the law and the public's voice as is necessary to draw their own
foregone conclusion. I wouldn't doubt that many of the "opinions" - 
and thus ignored - contributions contain well crafted and documented
arguements against the settlement, along with the anti-MicroSoft 
venting. Afterall, its very hard for anyone with intelligence and 
substantive knowledge of the topic, who also does not benefit 
directly or indirectly from Micro$oft's criminal monopoly practices,
to even READ, let alone WRITE on this topic, without a massive 
negative emotional response.    

What is truly astounding is the laying down of the justification
for exclusion of any public response they deem 'unfit' for the
report to the court. How tough is it to simply state that their 
final 'count' and summary is based on the following exclusion 
criteria, but the whole of the database has been included in the
appendix? So, maybe someone impartial could examine it to judge
their conclusions? 
Sounds a bit like Ken Lay refusing to attend the hearings because
he doesn't like the 'tone' of the proceedings thus far.
Maybe they could get Arthur Anderson to audit their methods and
results. That way Bush could squeeze a little more milage out of their 
retainer before they are all indicted.

Glenn
-- 
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota
Neuroscience Department
Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
321 Church St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455

(612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 
glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
livezey@bigfoot.com