Oh stop being cranky. Documented as in the sense of a valid logical proof, or two corroborating witnesses, etc.
Let's stop this exchange. It is a waste of bandwidth. We disagree.
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Proto-fascist structure
> Below is an excerpt from the website you give. The piece right away falls
into an evidentiary fallacy that is rife today: the notion the "documenting"
is some kind of ultimately solid evidentiary proof.
>
> Do you know that documents are hearsay ? That is to say they are like
words spoken out of the court room: he says that she said that he said. To
offer a document in a court case, one has to have a hearsay exception, or
else it is not admitted in evidence. In other words, the frequent refrain of
today " is that documented ?" seems to be ignorant of this evidentiary
reasoning.
>
> "Documented vs undocumented" is a flimsy evidentiary test to base a
critique of proof upon.
>
> How have you authenticated the documents you rely upon for your proofs ?
>
>
> C. Brown
>
> >>> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> 11/20/99 09:06PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> I challenge your belief in the Christic allegations about FEMA. They were
> repackaged from the Liberty Lobby Spotlight newspaper and from the
LaRouche
> intelligence network.
>
> Congratulations, you make my point again.
>
> For details, see:
>
> http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/Rwooz-09.htm#P296_102053
>
> (((((((((((((
>
>
>
> The problem of conflating documentable facts with analysis and conclusions
and then merging them with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories popular on
the far right has plagued progressive foreign policy critiques for several
years. The Christic Institute's "Secret Team" theory is perhaps the most
widespread example of the phenomenon. While many of the charges raised by
Christic regarding the La Penca bombing and the private pro-Contra network
are documented, some of their assertions regarding the nature and operations
of a long-standing conspiracy of high-level CIA, military, and foreign
policy advisors inside the executive branch remain undocumented, and in a
few instances, are factually inaccurate.
>
>
>
>