🚀 go-pugleaf

hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>Oh, and just because I don't want to respond to your continued
unfounded
>questioning of my character doesn't mean that I have accepted
your
>arguments.

Lee, relax.  I have never questioned your character.  Moreover,
you're the one -- not I -- who sprinkles your postings with
senseless insults like "I guess reading isn't one of your strong
suits."

When an RIAA officer makes an illogical argument or ducks a
central issue, an appropriate response is to mention the
financial incentive for the distortion.  Likewise, when
Congressman Coble, or his staff, pushes through pork for the
industry, an appropriate response is to mention the political
contributions or financial incentives to Coble or his staff for
the pork.

Nobody's above being influenced by financial bias.  The only
real question is whether financial bias exists for a given
issue.  I doubt a jury would think much of an expert witness
who, if asked about potential financial bias, responded with
bitter indignation and claimed to be above financial influence.
Some juries would respond with laughter.

Contrary to your earlier posting, I don't think that everyone
who disagrees with me has a financial bias.  But when someone
posts dozens and dozens of messages that omit any criticism of
any industry position, as you have done, financial bias becomes
an obvious question to ask.

Do you think it would constitute an unfair assault on the
character of Coble and his staff to look into potential
financial bias influencing them?

Andy




-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com