CobaltBlue,
You have a high opinion of yourself. I never said that you do not hold Greenspan in high esteem. I just said that in this locality most people think that Greenspan is a fool - and express that freely too. BTW, I haven't seen you counter their baseless allegation. Whatever. Perhaps you do not want to upset your friends or something.
As for legal and scientific truth: I raised the issue of legal truth, you raised the issue of objective truth. If you do not believe me, go and read your past posts. I simply stated that few things in life can be reduced to objective truths, and in a civil society people agree to abide by legal truths which are close approximations, and that it should not be necessary for me to explain this to someone who has been to law school. I then proposed that you arrive at the legal truth regarding the matter under discussion if you disagree with the BLS's position, which you declined to do.
I also stated that objective truth applies predominantly to scientific matters, and since you yourself state that the matter in question - the methodology of the BLS - is a highly sophisticated econometric matter, laypersons will be wise to keep their mouth shut regarding its validity or lack thereof and go read the academic material instead. Then, you reduced the matter to one falling under the jurisdiction of the court of public opinion, which I ridiculed, as neither legal, nor scientific, nor any form of objective truth may be reached via that venue, which is entrenched in subjectivity.
However, if I concede that you are nevertheless right, I suspect that it will make your day. So I will.
Now, you have a nice day too. <VBG>
-BGR.
PS: I just hope that you do not advice your clients to seek recourse in the court of public opinion. -ng- |
