more on I WILL STOP THIS THREAD AND LEAVE IT TO OTHER COMM IF Stone, sbaker

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "sbaker () steptoe com" <sbaker () steptoe com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:07:33 -0500
To: "'dave () farber net'" <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com>
Subject: RE: [IP] IF Stone, sbaker

Oh, give me a break.  Instead of "refreshing our understanding of fallacious
argument forms," why doesn't Ms. Mitchell just fire up Google and A9?  If
she do, she'd find plenty of credible sources, including the VENONA decrypts
and allegations by KGB Gen. Kalugin:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262258/103-0903771-6271002
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_16a.htm
http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/6/stone.asp

(I'm leaving out Ann Coulter's book and Bob Novak's column, since some may
find those sources, uh, unpersuasive.)

There's plenty of debate about Stone, of course, as the 50's Left fights to
preserve the conventional wisdom about McCarthyism:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813520088/103-0903771-6271002
?v=glance
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz568.html

Unless you have a taste for endless wrangling over what it takes to
constitute "proof," this debate isn't likely to end soon.  Which is why I
called the Soviet agent claims "credible allegations," rather than "the
truth," which in any event seems only to be revealed to Ms. Mitchell.

Stewart Baker

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 3:32 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] IF Stone, sbaker



------ Forwarded Message
From: Evelyn Mitchell <efm () tummy com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:08:25 -0700
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: IF Stone, sbaker

In reply to sbaker () steptoe com's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:53:07 -0500:

> Actually, Dave, there are credible allegations from more than one
> source that IF Stone was a long-time Soviet agent.  That puts a
> different spin on his recounting of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and
> suggests that ethical issues surrounding undisclosed ties on the part
> of "independent" journalists are not new.

sbaker's argument relies on a couple of fallacies, namely appeal to
authority ("credible allegations from more than one source"), and heresay
(the source is unnamed, and not firsthand).

To refresh our understanding of fallacious argument forms, we may want to
review:
   http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

The purpose of sbaker's email is to discredit IF Stone, without actually
presenting any real evidence.

How many of the people who read sbaker's original email will now have
lingering doubts about IF Stone? How many will understand that these doubts
are based on an untruth?

-- 
Regards,                    tummy.com, ltd
Evelyn Mitchell             Linux Consulting since 1995
efm () tummy com               Senior System and Network Administrators
                            http://www.tummy.com/

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as SBaker () steptoe com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/