Re: Shamos Rebuttal, the Finale

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 15 2005 - 13:14:23 CDT

On 5/15/05, Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's an excellent point, Stephanie. I remember asking the CFP 2004
> conference chair about that last year. She said the papers were accepted
> without any scrutiny at all. I guess that's a nice privilege to have -- an
> opportunity to say whatever one wants. But this distinction should be
> understood while evaluating these types of papers. There's a lot of
> artistic license there.

Seeing as how the conference chair there was an adviser of mine, I
must say that this is how many papers work in conference submissions.
That is, especially in the humanities, you submit an abstract and that
is reviewed and you are accepted or rejected. With CFP the *invited*
panelists are allowed to submit papers as essentially longer versions
of their position statements. CFP papers generally have little, if
no, weight... this instance is a particularly interesting one as I
think this would be one of the few venues that Shamos could have aired
such a paper... in that sense, it is a good thing as otherwise I don't
know how his articulation of his ideas would have reached your ears. :
) -Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
<http://pobox.com/~joehall/>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:37 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT