[IP] more on I WILL STOP THIS THREAD AND LEAVE IT TO OTHER COMM IF Stone, sbaker
------ Forwarded Message
From: "sbaker@xxxxxxxxxxx" <sbaker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:07:33 -0500
To: "'dave@xxxxxxxxxx'" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] IF Stone, sbaker
Oh, give me a break. Instead of "refreshing our understanding of fallacious
argument forms," why doesn't Ms. Mitchell just fire up Google and A9? If
she do, she'd find plenty of credible sources, including the VENONA decrypts
and allegations by KGB Gen. Kalugin:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262258/103-0903771-6271002
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_16a.htm
http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/6/stone.asp
(I'm leaving out Ann Coulter's book and Bob Novak's column, since some may
find those sources, uh, unpersuasive.)
There's plenty of debate about Stone, of course, as the 50's Left fights to
preserve the conventional wisdom about McCarthyism:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813520088/103-0903771-6271002
?v=glance
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz568.html
Unless you have a taste for endless wrangling over what it takes to
constitute "proof," this debate isn't likely to end soon. Which is why I
called the Soviet agent claims "credible allegations," rather than "the
truth," which in any event seems only to be revealed to Ms. Mitchell.
Stewart Baker
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 3:32 PM
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] IF Stone, sbaker
------ Forwarded Message
From: Evelyn Mitchell <efm@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:08:25 -0700
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: IF Stone, sbaker
In reply to sbaker@xxxxxxxxxxx's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:53:07 -0500:
>Actually, Dave, there are credible allegations from more than one
>source that IF Stone was a long-time Soviet agent. That puts a
>different spin on his recounting of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and
>suggests that ethical issues surrounding undisclosed ties on the part
>of "independent" journalists are not new.
sbaker's argument relies on a couple of fallacies, namely appeal to
authority ("credible allegations from more than one source"), and heresay
(the source is unnamed, and not firsthand).
To refresh our understanding of fallacious argument forms, we may want to
review:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
The purpose of sbaker's email is to discredit IF Stone, without actually
presenting any real evidence.
How many of the people who read sbaker's original email will now have
lingering doubts about IF Stone? How many will understand that these doubts
are based on an untruth?
--
Regards, tummy.com, ltd
Evelyn Mitchell Linux Consulting since 1995
efm@xxxxxxxxx Senior System and Network Administrators
http://www.tummy.com/
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as SBaker@xxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/