Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedee
Please think of the implications of deriding the methodology of the 80/20 PIA and Simon's reputation for independence before posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
What you maybe are meaning to say ceedee, is don't judge it before we've seen it? The problem is that speculation happens because there is a void until it arrives (not helped by the video fiasco)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedee
Deriding (not just querying) and undermining the PIA (and it's authors) before it's published is unhelpful.
Speculation is pointless but understandable.
But just because my mouth is open (a void) it doesn't mean I have to stick my foot in it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
Agreed - I did not see your derision of the methodology either (even in the quoted post). Ceedee seems to be saying we should not critique some specifics around the current output from Simon but I don't see why these should go unchallenged because this is a public forum and unless the challenge became personal or an invasion of privacy in some way, then I don't think it's wrong in a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Like hell I am!
All I've done is ask that people consider the implications of wildly (by which I mean, in an exaggerated, unwarranted or unreasonable manner) criticising the report, the methodology or the authors before publication because that will surely be used to denigrate it's conclusions.
(The quoted post suggested that the PIA would be of little or no value and that 80/20's ethics weren't "worth the pixels its written in" (that I presumed to be black humour) hence my description of it as derision.)
Quote:
|
It IS important that we await the PIA before making any final judgements on it, but I don't see the harm in debate or speculation now as long as it is properly read, considered and responded to in a reasoned manner when it does arrive.
|
If I suggested that it's not a good idea to shoot the messenger or declare that the message has no value before you find out if it's good news, would it make more sense?