On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Lizard wrote:
> "Colin A. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > Of course. But they don't then go and investigate the people they took
> > money from. To do so effects an appearance of impropriety, which dooms
> > any results to uselessness, since people who don't like the results have
> > an excuse not to listen to them, and others just can't tell what the
> > truth is.
>
> Shrug. I find most people (on ALL sides of the political spectrum,
> including mine) will discount studies by any group with a contrary
> ideology, regardless of who is funding them. I mean, be honest -- would
> you expect "The Peoples Global Environmental Peace And Love Research
> Institute" to ever issue a report saying "Nuclear Fission Plants Are
> Perfectly Safe"? Or, contrariwise, the "Montgomery Burns Nuclear
> Research Institute" to issue a report saying the opposite?
>
Isn't that what I just said? If a group actually makes the attempt to
appear impartial and really look at the issue without wanting a
particular answer, it's more likely people will listen to them.
> As someone on /. noted...if this had been about Microsoft hiring a PI to
> dig up dirt on Netscape or Oracle, there would be no one making excuses
> for them. (Note, BTW, that Oracle isn't exactly "the little guy"
> standing up to Evil Goliath Microsoft. Oracle is as rapaciously
> capitalist as any other Silicon Valley firm)
>
Making excuses for MS? Of course not! Or are you talking about Oracle?
They are even less competent than MS when it comes to producing
good-quality, useful stuff. I'm still trying to figure out where their
money comes from. If somebody came out with this kind of stuff on
Oracle, I'd be shouting them down louder. (please do so, I happen to
detest Ellison and McNeally with far more passion than I could ever
muster for Gates).
That said, how does it change the fact that the Independant Institute
clearly isn't as independant as it claims to be?
