<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hi Dyske</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Hi Jess,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I've read your
post carefully, but most of it seems to be based on your</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> misunderstanding
caused by my lack of clarity in my original post. So, I</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> agree with most
of them. There were some interesting historical facts and</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> arguments based
on those facts. I agree with them too.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hmm,  I though you might. Never
try and argue with some someone on
a zen i'm-ok-your-ok vibe - you will never get them to disagree only
confirm your right to disagree with them. Most infuriating. Like talking to
the elves in tolkien - they will say both yes and no.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">however:-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> "The belief
that neutrality is proactive is an illution."</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> The actress Halle
Berry who won an Oscar last year is half black and half</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> white. The story
that I heard (not being an expert on Hollywood facts) is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> that she used
to resist being categorized as black or white. This is rightly</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> so. The circumstances
of the situation calls for a neutrality which is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> reasonable. But
there is just too much force in our society, driven by the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> effect of our
language, to label her either or. Last year, she gave in and</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> identified herself
as African American. This was disappointing to me.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I would guess this comes from your
views on the importance of
language. My deal on this is that words are important but you are
getting hung up on the wrong ones. You've used the minefield of
language in race as an example, let me call another heavily loaded
language such as disability. The language is studied with explosives.
Disabled. Handicapped. Physically Challenged etc</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> Which one is the loaded word. Should
the 'disabled' person strive to be
none of the above? Should the 'other' strive to remain 'neutral' and
refuse to name the difference? If they are handicapped are they cap in
hand? If they are physically challenged are they not trying hard enough
(for challenge implies something to be aimed for)? If they are disabled
are they good for the nothing? By using the words do you make them
so?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> When reality
presents a situation where it is only reasonable to be neutral</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> (i.e., for me
personally, not to imply that it is for all), that is, all the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> factors to be
considered (within my knowledge and capacity) happen to be</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> equal in significance,
then, just as in the case with Halle Berry, it is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> hard to stay
neutral. It takes a great amount of effort to stand there,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> because the society
wants you to decide.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">The key thing here is these words
are constructs to express difference
and this is where I guess you and I would part. How does one stay
neutral in describing difference? </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">You can ignore the difference or claim
the difference is not really there
or a construct of society. You could remain 'neutral' - refuse to use the
language.  My take on this is at  its deepest roots difference and the
admission of difference is one of the joys and significance of who we
are . Being able to accept and embrace that difference is what leads to
acceptance and understanding. Take the disability analogy: You can
refuse to use all the language associated with it but if you refuse to use
the word would you still build a ramp for the wheelchair-user? A neutral
person could not because  that would point to different needs, a level of
mutual dependability, a difference. By claiming neutrality you deny the
reality of the differnce and in doing so do not address the 'needs' of that
difference. Difference itself becomes problematic.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> No ignoring of a difference or neutrality
to it's significance will make
that difference go away. Difference should be embraced as who we are
as part of human condition - not denied or ignored because to admit
them would be to 'take sides'. Remaining neutral in these events is not
'hard' or 'taking great effort' but problematic, destructive.and negative.
Because utimately, denial or ignorance (to ignore) leads to fear,
inequality and inaction.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(I admit I'm baiting the trap. couldn't
resist.)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">As for Halle Berry, I was pleased
when she came 'off the fence'. By
'resisting being categoriesed' she was colluding to the system that
maintained that colour was not important and the 'needs' of this
difference (in this case the under representation of black people with
the film industry) did not need to be addressed. It is and they do.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">In other mails you have talked about
derrida (derrida always pissed me
off I'm afraid) No matter how the binary is constructed white/black
black/white - disruption does not come from white=black or black=white.
A denial of what we see and feel does equate to either harmony or
acceptance just a weak/strong infinite.  Disruption by a third: white AND
black, black AND whiteAND……might just get along. There is no binary
because of the AND. The AND is what is vital in the end not the
supposed signifer or signified. It is difference that should be rejoiced
and embraced in as part of our uneasy alliance of being human. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Another instance
of where this happens is when a sexually ambiguous child is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> born. These hermaphrodites
are subjected to various surgeries to normalize</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> their sexual
status. In this process, their otherwise perfectly healthy</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> bodies are forever
ruined. They go through these processes simply because</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> the society is
not capable of accepting them as they are. Our society is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> structured in
such a way that you must be either or. These are forces of our</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> language, a categorical
thinking.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm not going to get into this one
as it just shows a ignorance of the
medical condition. Hermaphrodites are not generally  'otherwise
perfecty healthy' but often have significant medical problems including
internal bleeding  resulting in endrometriosis (which lead to potential
fertile women becoming infertile and great pain), misformed bladders
and urinary tracts (caused by retention of internal genitals), sexual
disfunction, hormonal and glandular imbalance to name just a few of the
'nicer' ones that often need major reconstructive surgery to avoid long
term damage and pain. Often, the resulting gender that is 'chosen'  is
dictated by these parameters and has nothing to do with society at all.
Its a lot more complicated than your 'neutral' judgements on those
making the decisions….</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq.. well that is where we started...
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Hi Jess,
> I would guess this comes from your views on the importance of language. My
> deal on this is that words are important but you are getting hung up on the
> wrong ones. You've used the minefield of language in race as an example, let
> me call another heavily loaded language such as disability. The language is
> studied with explosives. Disabled. Handicapped. Physically Challenged etc
> Which one is the loaded word. Should the 'disabled' person strive to be none
> of the above? Should the 'other' strive to remain 'neutral' and refuse to name
> the difference? If they are handicapped are they cap in hand? If they are
> physically challenged are they not trying hard enough (for challenge implies
> something to be aimed for)? If they are disabled are they good for the
> nothing? By using the words do you make them so?
I'm not sure what this has to do with my example of Halle Berry, but I'll
respond to this as a new discussion. The last question seems to sum up all
of the questions that precedes it, so I'm going to answer that.
I see that the meaning of a word is in its specific use, in its specific
context and circumstances. There are uses of these words that may cause
unnecessary frustration, stereotyping, and suffering, while in other
situations, their use may be perfectly appropriate. Hence there is no
all-encompassing answer to your question.
> The key thing here is these words are constructs to express difference and
> this is where I guess you and I would part. How does one stay neutral in
> describing difference?
This paragraph and a few that follows this one seems to come from your
misunderstanding that I intend to ignore differences. I'm not sure why you
interpreted it that way, but if someone is obviously black and if he wants
to call himself black, then I do not have any issues. That is perfectly
reasonable. It is when someone like Halle Berry who is 50-50, who feels she
needs to side with one side or the other by the societal pressures, that I
see unnecessary struggles arise. Even in this instance, the real culprit
isn't her, but our cultural construct called race and its tendencies to
pressure her to side. Because the society does not like to accept someone to
be neither. "Neutral" does not mean that you do not see the difference. It
just means that you happen to be inbetween. If you did not recognize the
difference, you could not even use the word "neutral". After all, you will
be asked: "neutral to what?"
> In other mails you have talked about derrida (derrida always pissed me off I'm
> afraid) No matter how the binary is constructed white/black black/white -
> disruption does not come from white=black or black=white. A denial of what we
> see and feel does equate to either harmony or acceptance just a weak/strong
> infinite.
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">hi dyske,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> > I would
guess this comes from your views on the importance of language. My</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> > deal on
this is that words are important but you are getting hung up on the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> > wrong ones.
You've used the minefield of language in race as an example, let</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> > me call
another heavily loaded language such as disability. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I'm not sure
what this has to do with my example of Halle Berry, but I'll</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> respond to this
as a new discussion. The last question seems to sum up all</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> of the questions
that precedes it, so I'm going to answer that.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">It's actually not a new discussion
I'm just trying to bring the discussion
out of your 'safe' areas.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> You used Halle Berry as an example
of neutrality (and your
disappointment that she was unable to remain neutral) to expand on
why is neutrality was your given choice of action in that example and
with the anti-war dialogue. From my reading of your mails you are using
you ideas of language, semantics and neutrality in carefully distanced
case studies. What I am attempting to challenge you with is that it </span></font><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><i>is
</i></span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">easier and takes little effort to
remain neutral in these two cases and to
suggest others misapplication of language is responsible for the ills and
ramifications of the outcomes within these situations</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">("</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span
style="font-size:10pt">What if your decision ended up contributing to something disastrous
and inhumane?")</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">as it  absolves yourself of any
personal responsibility within those
outcomes. I am trying to get you to apply these same 'rules' of neutrality
that you applied to ruths (and others) texts to your own responses and
interpretations.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> By bringing the debate of neutrality
and language (and difference) into
the minefield of the language of disability I am attempting to threaten
both your neutrality and your absolution of responsibility because the
language of disability is not removed (unlike a war unless it's in your
city or talking about </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>some elses</i>
race or colour) but demands a personal
and immediate response. If responsibility cannot be absolved by
neutrality within this framework  it would follow that responsibility might
occur (whether you like it or not) by your other neutral stands. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">To give an example I am trying to
show you that to remain neutral within
this language of disability is impossible as your neutrality becomes
active and powerful. Suddenly the  your same ideas of semeotics and a
lanuage that you previously said </span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">"..concocts
its own world and we
project</span></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">that</span></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12pt"> </span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">back
to reality, and we act on this simulacrum" </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">now</span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">
becomes </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">"</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span
style="font-size:10pt">I see that the meaning of a word is in its specific use, in its
specific context and circumstances…"   </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">& </span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">"…their use may be perfectly
appropriate." </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">If lanuage applied
within the language of disability are
"perfectly appropriate" to describe difference  why is the same language
to describe colour (black/ afro-american) or an anti-war protests (ruths,
michaels  text) questionable? Who makes the rules here in the
application of this pick'n' choose theory?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> Within the original discussion you
said that</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> "…many
people are
pressured to decide which side to be on, [this ]is also an effect of our
language" and that you refused to engage in this by taking your 'neutral'
stance but "</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">…This
does not mean that I am apathetic to the situation"
What I am suggested in you have constructed  a perfect theoretic frame
work for apathy and and absolution of responsibility. Unfortunately, only
when this are removed, distant and safe subjects. By keeping the theory
as applicable only to debate in which your personal neutral response
has no meaning or effect  you can continue to blame-shift, question
others motivation, words and responses without effort, engagement or
responsibility on your part</span></font></div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt">"Apathy: Lack of interest
or concern, especially regarding matters
of general importance or appeal; indifference. Lack of emotion or
feeling; impassiveness"</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">neutrality is apathy.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">. Derrida himself
is a very politically involved individual. He</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> feels strongly
about anti-Semitism. If he were to deny the notion of</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> difference, then
he could not possibly support his own efforts.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">yes thats why is lifes work has been
to express theory which
appearance and reality are ultimately untenable… he accepts and
embraced difference. (!?!)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">derrida is intellectual snobbery for
beginners. I didn't say he denied the
notion of difference  (I said neutrality denied the notion of difference) I
did say the concept weak/strong binary is not subverted by derrida
(central deconstuction just produces and  strong/weak infinite so long
as 'weak' is seen as a negative) Difference and differAnce are to
different discussion (arggh!! I hate him)  However I'm bored bored
already. I can't point to anything that not already out there (in terms of
books) just reading them with a different take.(urg)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Please see this
website.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> http://www.isna.org/</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I suggest you see read it again yourself..</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">"</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">We
certainly would like to see people become less gender-phobic, but
we don't think dumping intersexed kids into a gender-phobic world with
no gender or with a "third gender" is the way to go"</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">"</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>Second,
and much more importantly, we are trying to make the world a
safe place for intersexed kids, and we don't think labeling them with a
gender category that in essence doesn't exist would help them</i></span></font><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size:10pt">"</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>"ISNA recognizes that it can be damned hard
to be intersexed, or
to have an intersexed child. That's why we exist. That's why we
</b></span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b><i>don't</i></b></span></font><font
face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b> advocate "doing nothing." "</b></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">ISNA believes that medically necessary surgeries
should be employed
when a child or adult's physical health is threatened. We believe that,
for example, if a child's urine is not draining in a healthy way, the child
should receive medical treatment for that problem. </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">….I still say you are looking at very complicated
issue in very simplistic
terms. As an advocate of difference I agree with some of the issue
raised by this pressure group. As an advocate of child health I find
much of their medical/shared 'proof' badly researched and too big is
their generalizations for me to agree that corrective surgery as a
general approach is either unnecessary, thoughtless or socially
motivated.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Its interesting that find neutrality is not applicable
here…</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></p>
<p><br/></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
Hi Jess,
It is unfortunate that you started this discussion in the wrong footing. I
ask you please to re-read my original paragraph that "pissed" you off.
Here it is:
"Your analysis of the media seems to assume that there are facts independent
of interpretations. Even if you were the weapons inspector in Iraq, at the
moment you interpret your own experience it ceases to be reality. It is an
interpretation that cannot claim any more accuracy than any other
interpretations in the world. If your argument about the passivity and
mediation were true, we should simply trust our government officials who are
so much closer to the reality of Iraq than any of us are. Tony Blair has
access to information that you do not have. You might be making a rash
decision based on your limited knowledge of the situation. And, your rash
decision does have an influence in the outcome of this event. What if your
decision ended up contributing to something disastrous and inhumane?"
The most important line here is: "If your argument about the passivity and
mediation were true…" Everything that follows falls under this HYPOTHESIS.
I have even acknowledged that this may have been misleading and unclear.
Yet, you insist on misunderstanding.
Let me paraphrase this paragraph. If there is such a thing as "facts
independent of interpretations" then we would have to give precedence to
those who have more facts. (I DO NOT advocate this view) If facts exist
independent of interpretations, then we would have to forever seek more
facts before we can act. (I DO NOT advocate this view) If you believed in
this, and acted on your limited knowledge, and if you caused something
disastrous, then how are you going to reconcile the fact that you acted on
limited knowledge (ignorance)? This question would only apply if you
believed in the view that facts exist independent of interpretations.
Devotedly contrary to this view, I believe that there are no facts
independent of interpretations. And therefore everyone's interpretations
have equal value. If you believe this, you can act even with the limited
knowledge that you have. Even if you cause something disastrous, what would
matter is that you tried to understand, learn, and interpret to the best of
your abilities. So, from my own personal perspective, I cannot blame,
accuse, criticize anyone for taking any sides: for, neutral, or against.
Personally, I have no interest in holding anyone accountable for their
views.
The line that you became "pissed off" with, is meant to raise a point that
if facts exists independent of interpretations, would not this be true? But
I DO NOT believe in that view. I'm quite opposite of it.
So, unfortunately most of what you have wrote in reply cannot be responded
since it is based on your misunderstanding.
Regarding ISNA:
What they oppose is to create another social construct called "third
gender". This makes sense, since it is the social construct that is making
them suffer in the first place. So, by creating yet another social
construct, you are not solving the true problem.
As you can see, they do advocate children to stay ambiguous until such time
as they can decide for themselves whether to be women, men, or stay neutral.
You are confusing the idea of creating another category for the middle, with
what I mean by "neutral". I certainly did not propose to create a racial
category called "gray".
Also please read other posts that I've written for this discussion. Staying
neutral does not equal ignoring differences. In fact, you cannot be neutral
without the differences. I do also embrace differences. Nowhere in my posts,
have I said that the differences should be abolished.
Also, regarding your view about ISNA's philosophy: I would suggest that you
watch interviews of these people who are organizing ISNA. If you would watch
the pains and sufferings that they went through and still are going through
as a result of unnecessary, socially imposed, corrective surgeries, I would
not think that you would so quickly dismiss their claims as being "badly
researched".
Dyske