[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NRC website and work usage.
Mr. Ford --
I think your response below was excessively sarcastic considering Mr.
Clayton's statement. Mr. Clayton was, in effect, complimenting the NRC by
saying how much use its Web site was to him in his work, even as he was
saying that the NRC took it offline for ill-considered reasons. I inferred
that he thought that the advantages of taking the site offline were far
outweighed by the disadvantages. If you disagreed, why not argue the merits
of that instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack?
I know he said that "the USC got it exactly right", but he followed that
immediately by saying that the NRC's taking the Web site down was
ill-considered. I didn't take that to mean that he agreed with the USC about
the NRC's motive being to exclude public input, but rather that he agreed
that the NRC folks didn't think before they acted so hastily. Why would you
contend that he and the USC are "chums" just because they happened to agree
on one small point? The name for that type of rhetorical device escapes me
at the moment, but it is a recognized technique used to fling mud and
obscure the real issue.
I wish we could be more civil on RadSafe. It's one thing to wax passionate
about one's positions, but quite another to smear for the sheer exhilaration
of smearing. I for one think that whiffs of passion enhance discourse, and
as people who know me well can tell you, I believe in the effectiveness of
sarcasm as a tool to point out folly, wishful thinking, and ridiculous
assumptions. But emphasis is like perfume: use too much and people will
avoid you. Some may even start wheezing because of you and then the control
freaks will ban the stuff altogether. An expressive person like you would
surely not welcome a result like that.
Janet Westbrook
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Ford" <MFORD@PANTEX.COM>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: NRC website and work usage.
> Golly Gee, Zack,
>
> 'Sorry to hear that you were so inconvenienced by the repercussions from
the terrorist attacks, but I am glad to hear to that you're great chums with
Lochbaum and Co.!
>
> If the NRC had their heads screwed on straight, they would have called you
before they did anything... especially making sure the anything they did had
no effect on Mr. Zack. I must concede their wanton hubris is astonishing!!
>
> One question: how did you ever get your job done before the web page?
>
> One suggestion: stop the whining and get over it.
>
> Have a great day!
> Michael
>
> -------original message-----------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:12:49 -0800 (PST)
> From: Zack Clayton <zclayton@YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: NRC website and work usage.
>
> How we view the NRC actions on their web site depends heavily on
> whether we use it and can easily replace the usage. I use the NRC
> Daily reports page and the Plant status page as part of my job
> functions. I am SOL on most of that material at this time. If anyone
> can point me to another location that contains the information I will
> happily concede the point that its not a problem. Until I find a
> replacement for that my bosses are not getting the information from me
> they expect....
>
> ...I think the UCS got it exactly right. NRC taking down their page was
> not well considered.
>
> Zack Clayton
> Columbus, Ohio
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.