Replies

We do have evidence for scenario #1, since we observed her behavior and demeanor yesterday, and faxes, email, and telephone calls ensued (*evidence*) and today she appears with a toned down attitude.

NO YOU DON'T!!!! The letters and faxes are not "evidence"!!!! There is no question the letters and faxes EXIST!!! Good grief.

Now I understand how the O.J. jury could happen.

You have an observation: demeanor 1. You have the letters and faxes. You have a second observation: demeanor 2.

You have no EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION between the faxes and the change between 1 and 2. NONE. NOTHING.

This not new. Come on. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The Reagen movie is a case in contrast, and should make you doubt the explanation, rather than accept it. There was EVIDENCE of a connection. We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

I really didn't mean to make such a big deal of this. But, please. Apparently there are lots of people walking around who can't distinguish between causation and correlation.

other instances where the audience outcry has resulted in changes.

I'm sorry,I just noticed this one.

Of course, an "outcry" can result in a "change". We are not arguing over whether it CAN, nor are we arguing over whether it HAS, nor are we arguing over whether it might have in this instance.

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT.

We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Regans in response to public outcry.

Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.

http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353

Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?

We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Reagans in response to public outcry.

Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.

http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353

Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?

Oh, brother!

Don't compare my comments to the OJ Trial, my FRiend.

I have loads of commonsense.

I didn't say the audience response was *proof*, did I? I said it was *evidence*, which you said there was none of.

The behavior-letters-behavior sequence can lend itself to a certain interpretation, which I tend to think is the case, and it is by definition *evidence*.

I hope you can understand the difference between pointing out "evidence" and "proof", since you compared it to Couric "holiday shopping", something we have no way of knowing Couric engages in, unless she said so, which you did not offer, so my point is your offering the two scenarios as possible explanations for her change in attitude was not a logical comparison.

Good Lord.