[Am-info] Re: Auditing the Public Response

[Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.]

> From: Sujal Shah <sujal@sujal.net>
>>In re: what glenn wrote
>>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?

That statement surely cannot be the entirely quoted message from over
7,000 communications. Therefore you cannot accept at face value that
the appearance of such a statement within any given response is 
grounds for dismissing the whole of the message unless you accept
that that statement is the sum and substance of all 7,000 dismissed.
And further...

> 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...

That's what the beginning of the article said, however, at the end came
======================================================================
More than a thousand messages are said by Justice to have been 
completely off-topic. Some of those were advertisements -- known as 
"spam" -- and at least one e-mail contained pornography. 
"The United States proposes not to publish such submissions or to 
provide them as part of its filing to the court," Justice lawyers wrote.
======================================================================

If all you have to say is "trust us, the 'missing' submissions are
not appropriate to this forum" and then present a subset in the filing 
to the court..... well, pardon me for being such a skeptic. But this 
administration, in every department and office, has already provided 
glaring examples to justify EXTREME suspicion in response to such
assurances. Do you REALLY believe that Al Gore's DOJ would be busily
dismantling the DOJvsM$ case? How can it NOT be a commentary on Bush?   
 
Clinton lied about sex. Bush and company have lied about everything
BUT sex, so far. They've locked up Daddy Bush's papers, drawn the 
curtain over not-so-tricky Dick's handlers-er-'policy advisors', 
created budget accounting tactics that make even Arthur Anderson
blush, blown the hinges off the 'lockbox', and they are very busy
"settling" a case they had already won, by handing Bill Gates an
opportunity to get a suspended sentence while extending his 
monopoly to the education market, and giving nearly full immunity
from further prosecution.  

Sorry, but I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the basis for 
'trust' in their behavior thus far. I want to see ALL of the 
submissions, even if they don't 'count' some in their summary table.

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