[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Jim Bell, Apology to list. Was: [Yadda Yadda Yadda]
On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
[...]
> To which Black Unicorn responded:
>
> > I have US$ 50,000 that says it didn't. Care to take me up on it?
[...]
> I would be interested to see if Jim Bell and Black Unicorn could
> engage in a "friendly" wager on the question in point for the
> nominal sum of, say, US$100. Perhaps they can cooperate to frame
> their dispute in unambiguous terms, mutually agree upon an escrow
> agent and pick a referee or other resolution mechanism to decide
> their "case." Wouldn't that be something?
>
> By the way, gentlemen, I'm not kidding. Everyone on this list
> could use a respite from all the "yes-it-is-no-it's-not" posts
> among various combatants engaged in "how-many-angels..." spats.
Prediction: During the terms negotiation phase much backpeddling by Mr.
Bell will be seen. This will include a narrowing of the geographical
scope of the wager, a revival of the debate as to when a new century
actually begins (00:00:01 Jan 1, 1900 or 00:00:01 Jan 1, 1901), endless
hand wringing about what exactly an "exemplar" is, and whether he has to
pay US$ 50,000 on losing, or the amount representing its depreciation
from the time I made the wager. (US$ $49,999.997?)
The reality is that Mr. Bell, more often than most people, is speaking
before thinking. He pulled his claim right out of the air, which is
generally the substance of the support for his works. He does not
bother to research, (except to cite the constitution) or ground any of
his discussion in anything like reality. He backs his claims instead
with posture and bluff ("How much do you want to bet that...") This is
smoke he hopes will solidify into substance for those too lazy to check
up on him. (It is worth noting that Mr. Bell has gotten into disputes
with 4 people (by my limited count) who actually seem to have a clue
about the subjects they discuss. Every one of these has been in the
context of a correction to Mr. Bell's facts or assumptions. The irony is
that occasionally he has some good points, which are simply decimated by
the Yadda Yadda Yadda portions of his work.
All this said, I find Mr. May's and Mr. Sandfort's criticism stinging. Mr.
Bell, and my response to him, manages to sap a great deal of time and effort
from myself and others for no gain aside draining his (and to some extent my) reputation
capital. These disputes serve little purpose otherwise. It's clear to
me, if not everyone else, that Mr. Bell simply fabricates his positions,
evidence, and persuasion out of the mist.
I will waste no more time on him unless he makes the most offensive
errors in legal fact.
He is still quite welcome to stand by the original statement that
promoted my wager. I still await an apology for being compared with the
Nazi oven workers.
With my apologies to the list for not restraining myself sooner -
---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:[email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: [email protected]