Some people's opinions do. Informed critique of the validity of her method or results would be useful.
> Why are your panties in such a wad here?
I was probably crankier than the matter deserves, I have some personal reasons that aren't relevant.
> Am I required to approve of Ehrenreich's deception?
Why does it matter?
> No room for questions?
> I never made any claims about how ethical I was only
> that many people
> find the deception Ehrenreich practiced to be
> questionable. I can see
> their point and agree with it to some degree.
> No high-horse moralizing on my part when I point
> this out unless any
> question of the appropriateness of deception is
> high-horse moralizing to
> you.
> If you think the deception was great I'm very happy
> for you.
> I don't condemn her for it but I also don't praise
> her for it either.
>
> Do not compare the fact that Terkel may not disclose
> his degree to every
> person he questions (it isn't relevant to every
> discussion) to
> Ehrenreich's deliberate dishonesty in how she
> presented herself to
> others. Why would you wish to smear Terkel with such
> an odious
> comparison?
It's an "odious" comparison, but you don't condemn her?
Bad form counselor.
> If you wish to defend Ehrenreich can you do it
> without smearing Terkel
> at the same time?
It's a "smear," but you aren't condemn her?
How bad do you think she was? Did she defraud them?
If not you have a very weak
> defense of her
I wasn't "defending" her ethics, I said they were irrelevant to the value of her work. Or if there is a defense, I'd think it would be, her ethics problems are, in my view, small, and the value of her work (including to the people E. deceived) is considerable, so that more than cancels any ethical problems.
and should
> let others, like bitch perhaps, carry this defense
> forward.
> I have no lower opinion of Ehrenreich than any other
> social scientist.
Wow, I'm glad I'm not a social scientist, if you think the "odious" and comparison to a social scientist is a "smear"!
> Who said I did? I didn't claim any position as moral
> or ethical arbiter
> of anything except myself.
Hence your condemnation of E?
I stated I was ambivalent
> about Ehrenreich
If you are "ambivalent" about E, I'd hate to think what you say when you feel strongly about something!
>>
> Since I believe part of the reason she chose to
> interject herself into
> the narrative of N&D was self-aggrandizement I am
> free to find that
> behaviour questionable as have others.
Hey, you're free to do and think a lot of things that aren't justified rationally, as long as you acknowledge that you have no basis to think them.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs