🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3365343E.43DB@primenet.com>,
Charlie McCann  <chasmc@primenet.com> wrote:
>James J. Lippard wrote:
>
>> You have exactly as much working knowledge of the fact that they are bound
>> by contract to confidentiality as you do that it was an employee of a firm
>> other than Primenet who called you. 
>
>I hate to keep bringing this up Jim but I don't even know who *they*
>are. I asked politely for the name of the telemarketing firm you gave my
>personal/confidential information to and you won't reveal it. How then
>do you expect me to recommend their ability to meet any contractual
>obligations if I don't even know who they are ?

I don't expect you to recommend them, nor would I expect you to be able
to make any kind of authoritative judgment about their reliability in
contractual matters even if you *did* know their name.  Nor do I expect
you to know the background and reliability of every employee of Primenet
who has access to accounting information, which is just as relevant to
your stated concerns but about which you have not expressed any worries.

In other words, this is a red herring.  You continue to accept and
reject statements which have equivalent epistemic status on the grounds
of what accords best with the position you have already decided to hold
rather than on any objective basis.

(Now I'd better stop using philosophical jargon in postings that are
crossposted to alt.usenet.kooks or I might find myself nominated...)
--
Jim Lippard    lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04