On 25 Jan 1995, Koster wrote:
> I wonder if the "statistically significant" correlation between those arguing
> for virtual pages and those arguing against any change to the present system
> is based on *your* assumption that most arguments against paragraph numbers
> are really arguments against change.
The statistically significant correlation does not asume anything as the
motives of the people involved. But it seems pretty consistent that the
vocalist on virtual paging do not want anything changed.
>
> I for one have not argued against changing the present system. My only
> concern is that the new system should not break the parts of the present
> system that work.
>
> But as long as we're moving this thread into conspiracy theories, what about
> the statistically significant correlation between those arguing for paragraph
> numbers and those who hope to make a personal profit from a system that makes
> no use of National Reporter System cites?
>
Well, I ask you to draw that correlation with the those is the AALL who
are supporting this change, the Chief Justice of Louisiana, John Lederer,
the Computer Committee of the Judicial Conference which in 1992 supporte
the change, the Taxpayer Assets Project etc. I do not see the
correllation. And, my own participation is quite clear ... it is not as
if I am taking back door consulting from interested parties and not
disclosing that on the net. But, I was not questioning anyones motives,
and, it was wrong for you to indicate that. I was just pointing out the
correllation. I am sure that some have what they feel are well founded
reasons ...but, an argument against paragraph numbering which is based
primarily on "beliefs" and "hypothesis" coming from those on record that
the system should remain as is seems weak. It is not as if the virtual
page proponents can come up with any practical, hard-nosed arguments ...
just a lot of soft and feely stuff and the sky is falling stuff, as if
one is casting around for anything to stop the inevitable. The fact is
that paragraph numbering offer numerous practical benefits that have
been articulated well by John Lederer, among others. I am still waiting
for clearly articulated practical opposing arguments.
Anyway, I think my statistical observation is correct, and yours is not,
whatever peoples motives.
If am building a bridge over a river, I do not think I would listen to
the technical arguments of people of how to design the bridge, if those
people oppose the construction of the bridge, and, hope, that if
constructed, it will fall down, especially where those technical arguments
are amorphorous.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
sugarman@panix.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST