Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site crystal.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!crystal!pal From: pal@crystal.ARPA Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: On preconceptions and the lack thereof Message-ID: <356@crystal.ARPA> Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 17:03:58 EDT Article-I.D.: crystal.356 Posted: Wed Aug 15 17:03:58 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 02:18:16 EDT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 93 And another salvo in the flame-throwing duel: > lines are from Brian Atkins, rest from me (Anil Pal) > Wow, nice leap! I am really interested in how you got from "by an eastern > judge" all the way to "Everyone east of Britain is part of a conspiracy to > help the Soviets beat the USA, right?". BY GEORGE FOLKS, HE'S INVENTED > A NEW SYSTEM OF LOGIC DEDUCTION!!! Alright, lets look at this a little closer: As I see it, you made (at least) two assertions, perhaps implicitly 1. The Soviets won due to a bad call by an "Eastern" judge. 2. The call was not a mistake, but an example of bias towards the Soviets. If you didn't mean to imply that, then I'm sorry, I completely misread your article, and what follows stands null and void. Otherwise... My question remains: where is the motive? Why would an "Eastern" judge cheat to help the Soviets? (A Soviet judge, alright. But a Czech?) And yes, I have this preconception that judges (of *whatever* nationality) are *not* biased. Sort of like "Innocent until proven guilty." To me "The judge was eastern" is not sufficient proof. In my opinion, that is just one step removed from "because the judge is foreign." That you took such strong exception to my characterization of you as someone who would make the latter assertion seems to imply that the two are completely different as far as you are concerned. Care to explain the difference? > Please direct your attention to the parenthetical note "(at lease I haven't > heard anything..)". Living in Boulder Colorado I have little reason to read > the New York Times. Thank you, however, for enlightening me. > Living in Madison, Wisconsin, I should have as little reason. Unfortunately, the local papers do not serve any purpose not better served by Kitty Litter(tm, probably), and I like to read newspapers once in a while. Surely the Chinese complaints appeared in places other than the NYTimes? If not, I suggest this as a reason to read the NYTimes. (No financial interest here, just an unsolicited testimonial). Always assuming, of course, that you *want* to hear about such things (another rash leap on my part :-) > I wonder if your PRE-CONCEPTIONS about my supposed pre-conceptions might not > be as bad as mine would be if I indeed had those pre-conceptions. > (I studied under Lewis Carol :->) How about this for a "supposed" preconception: > > [ATKINS] I think if you look well at the examples of bad judging on > > the part of Rumania in the woman's Gymnastics, you will find > > the Rumanian judge consistently beneath the other judges for > > the competition, and consistently above for the Rumanian > > team. This is perhaps normal, but not to the extent > > displayed here! (I did not watch the woman's competition, I mentioned that the individual judges' scores were not published. Given that, it is difficult to explain the basis for the above para from your original article. And you maintain you are free from any taint of preconception? At the start of the para you think there may be bias, by the end you are complaining about the extent of the bias! Any "preconceptions" I have about you are the result of your article (maybe they are post-conceptions, then). > As for my grammer, and lack of proof reading, I'm sorry. *Sigh*, I'm sorry too, but I can't resist: "grammer?" > Oops, we have premature flameout! Look at the audience in the stadium during > the marathon. Look at the applause for Koshi Gushigan for men's all around. > Look at the applause for the women's team gymnastics gold medalists. Look at > the applause for the RumaniaN winner of the woman's 3000m (?) where Mary > Decker fell. The OVERALL audience reaction was pro-winner, reguardless of > nationality. The booing was wrong. But then, why not condemn all the > spectators for the few clowns in the audience,they're Amuricans, aren't they? My point was that there *were* examples of bad sportsmanship, too. Rooting for your team as fine (in team competition, especially). Rooting against the other team is not so nice. Booing individual athletes is downright nasty. This is a case of whether the glass is one quarter empty or three-quarters full. How many bad sports does it take to make a bad audience? As for "Amuricans", yes, I *have* found US crowds to contain a larger percentage of poor sports than other crowds, especially when competitors from Communist nations are involved. Case in point: in 1981 I went to watch the University of Wisconsin Ice Hockey team play the Soviet junior national team, naively expecting an event of international friendship, sportsmanship, camaraderie, etc. Didn't quite work out that way. The players were greeted by boos, comments re their ancestry, chants of "Boris! Boris!" (regardless of the player's actual name, in case you were wondering). I guess you accept this as "normal." I don't. > > My original flame was not a defense of American sportscasting. I agree > that it is biased, and VERY POORLY DONE! I find fault with the camera > handling and the commentating inaccuracy more than with the predictable, > and ignorable, biased remarks. > At least we agree here. The difference is that I find the bias more offensive and less ignorable than the technical faults. I guess I hear what I *don't* want to hear, and disregard the rest :-). Anil Pal crystal!pal Univ. of Wisconsin- Madison