[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Xerox transfer et al
Hi Katherine and all,
I admit that sometimes I can be very unclear, so please allow me to make a
brief comment and then I won't say anything more....
> my
> point was the unfairness of using these arguments specifically in the
> context of questioning Wilhelm's research, when as far as I can see none
> of the points made are true of the article that was used to suggest that
> Wilhelm's research may be tainted somehow.
I did not hint or imply that Wilhelm's research may be tainted. Nor am I
saying that is is not tainted. I simply did/do not have sufficient data to
say one way or another, so I won't say it and did not say it.
What I was describing and discussing was about the article, the author and
the company. The article was NOT written by Wilhelm or Wilhelm Institue. And
I didn't *imply* that the article was tainted either, I simply *said* it
explicitly. It was clear that that was my view.
But I also said that the taintedness is not wrong either. It is common and
articles like those appear all over the places, especially in news releases
and press releases. I simply wanted to tell general audience to be more
critical when reading articles like this.
My only criticism about Wilhem (implicit or explicit, in previous email or
now) is about their extremely unwise decision of putting articles written by
commercial, for-profit companies on their front page, but it's their decision.
Dave Soemarko
***************************************************************************
***** See Soemarko's Direct Carbon (SDC) prints at
***** http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/
***************************************************************************