|
With all due respect, when I stepped in to offer an independent and unbiased forum, based on rules of debate that would be fair to all parties concerned, at first you welcomed it, but then decided to opt for what you agreed, would be a three ring circus. Lets not make it seem that that APA is the only ones who want to dictate the rules, you do too.
Not trying to be difficult, just trying to be fair, independent, and unbiased. I worked very hard and fought for that reputation.
You know, and George knows, I like and have a great deal of personal respect for George. Just like I have great conversations with you, I have great conversations with George, on a blue moon. SO you know nothing I say is personal or said with any disrespect to either of you.
The thing is, George has a dog in the race in some way. He wants the end of polygraph; of this, there can be no doubt. He has a right to want the end of polygraph, and though we disagree about it, we get along and in many ways, I consider him a friend. However, there is an appearance of bias there, and this is what I am trying to tell you.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Fact is, there is only one option you had, which could have facilitated a fair, independent, and unbiased forum, with someone with no dog in the fight moderating the debate, and keeping it fair to both sides.
In short, I doubt that anyone in the APA would debate you under your rules and circumstances. While them doing so benefits you, it offers them zero benefit. If you want a dialogue and discussion, there had to be a reason to come to the table to do so. You have made it politically prohibitive to do so.
You're going to have better luck with a host who is independent, unbiased, and independent.
In any case, just putting in my two cents. I gave up trying to be a peace keeper and problem solver. My attentions are focused on the issues I have down here.
|
