[Am-info] Re: Auditing the Public Response

[Geoffrey]

Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. wrote:
>>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 would expect that they have come to conclusion that the 7,000 
responses in question have been summarized to be no more then some form 
of "reject the settlement, because I hate Microsoft."  Yes, the 7,000 
responses probably varied widely in their content, but if they did not 
contain any valid reasoning for rejecting AND they were laced with 'Bill 
Gates sucks' innuendos, then their summary could well be accurate 
enough.  And, it would not surprise me if they did receive 7,000 such 
responses.


> 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?

Let's not let this drift into a political slamming contest.  I 
personally don't trust any politician beyond the local elected dog 
catcher, as I figure they've sold their soul somewhere along the line, 
much like most all upper level management in large corporations.

Point is, I agree that they should make all of the responses available 
to the public, except those that can easily be identified as TOTALLY 
unrelated (viagra spam and such)


-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@3times25.net

"...the system (Microsoft passport) carries significant risks to users that
are not made adequately clear in the technical documentation available."
- David P. Kormann and Aviel D. Rubin, AT&T Labs - Research
- http://www.avirubin.com/passport.html