[Am-info] Re: Auditing the Public Response

[Sujal Shah]

On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 12:37, Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. wrote:
[SNIP]
> > 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

Whoa!  That's not what I meant.  I actually agree with the
categorization of comments that say things like "I hate Microsoft" and
nothing else as expressing no opinion on the settlement... does that
statement mention the settlement at all?

I think, however, by giving the example, they've categorized the 7,000
"no opinions" as people that hate Microsoft.  Which is great because it
implies (especially if spun correctly) that the other 15,0000 no votes
excluded the rabid Microsoft haters (which many people would consider
ALL of us on this list, except Simon).

I don't think that this has any commentary on the Bush administration
(though feel free to believe that, it's just not my belief).  Besides, I
think they have to make all comments public, not just the "salient"
ones...

Sujal

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info