[eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog
Wed Sep 9 23:59:19 CDT 2009
Just as an aside, I have talked to Chris about this and he has elucidated
why the blog is currently sans names. In addition, he also explained his
thinking about why he wrote what he wrote. I felt his explanation was more
than adequate. I will cross-post it if this is the place for this
discussion to continue. I am clarifying this because I want everyone to
know that niether Chris or John seem to have intended this in any nefarious
way - they were just doing what they do for a living etc.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>wrote:
> I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the
> CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important
> point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically
> unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog"
> would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the
> CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters
> student without a completed degree, which is better than most
> journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines),
> but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not
> to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that,
> like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very
> specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they
> provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide
> their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to
> argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating
> the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was
> written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to
> judging these cards' quality.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman