Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 16:18:31 {k/.KBikg62hxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *****************AP and AF posted by Gedanken on November 22, 1999 at 16:06:36:
Gedanken
If you are correct that Greg does not think that Alan's deductions are unreasonable then he must think them reasonable. If he thinks them reasonable then Alan has proved what he set out to prove; reasonable people will consider the Society's actions to be dishonest.
Greg has said that Alan’s conclusions are reasonable ones, but that saying that without clarifying that it is our opinion is wrong. Alan said that he could prove intent. He has not. At least that is my opinion. As for intent, I do agree with Alan but only as an opinion.
When presenting arguments, whether we are successful or not depends more upon our listeners. It is them that must be convinced. Unless the matter is one of absolutes then success (or not) of our arguments will always depend upon listeners. Alan has compared his argument with those accepted in a courtroom, that is preponderance. In such instances whether a preponderance has been evidenced is not in Alan’s power to decide but the jurors.
Basically I disagree strongly with your assessments here which appear to me to be overly biased in favor of giving the Society the benefit of the doubt.
Explain how my opinion that dishonesty is evidenced give appearance of bias towards the Society.
I think your opinion of my assessment smacks of bias.
Friend