Comments on: A Test of Dahlia Lithwick’s Honesty

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:43:13 +0000

“Dahlia Lithwick recently published a blog post that reprinted an e-mail from a famous legal figure. That figure has retracted an important part of his e-mail. How she chooses to notify readers about that retraction will be a test of her honesty and integrity.”

Actually not.

If you wanted an “honest” reaction from Lithwick you sould have simply waited with everyone else to see what she would do, without setting it up as a challenge to her integrity.

Now that you have interceded, you’ve created an observer’s paradox, which will ultimately affect Lithwick’s reaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer%27s_Paradox
I can however see how this strategy could benefit you. No matter what Lithwick does, you can claim a victory.
Firstly, if she does not retract you can say that you were right, i.e. ‘Lithwick didn’t make a retraction therefore I was right to say that she is dishonest’.
Secondly, if she does make the retraction, you can claim responsibility for having held her to task, i.e to be able to say that you were right.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:00 +0000

Bill,

Check your e-mail.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:02:43 +0000

You ought to email her about this, if you haven’t, by the way, Patterico.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:01:16 +0000

I agree that Lithwick is worth engaging in discussion and, usually, worth reading. I’ll be surprised if she doesn’t make some sort of acknowledgment of Dellinger’s change in position.

Of course, the whole thing will be George W. Bush’s fault.

By: AMac

AMac — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:45:28 +0000

So what kind of repentence are you requiring of her?
…
The guy is recalling a nasty closing attack, not any part of his thesis.

So the question answers itself.

Lithwick should inform her readers that Dellinger has recalled (sic) his nasty closing attack. That seems closer to “honesty” than “repentence,” but YMMV, as they say.

By: Joe M.

Joe M. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:43:08 +0000

I included a sentence that could easily be read to call in question your “honesty.” I had no such intention and I write to you now to recall that defective passage.

I haven’t followed this at all, but this passage is downright sleazy. Talk about intellectual dis-”honesty.” But don’t worry–it’s not his fault, it’s the passage that’s “defective.”

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:32:37 +0000

So what kind of repentence are you requiring of her? Her post did not center on the now retracted statement, did it? From what I can tell, she quoted the email to boost the rhetoric supporting her position…The attack at the end, while obviously pointed and something you may remember more than any other sentence in that long email, was not something she latched on to. How many times have you simply posted “UPDATE” to posts/opinions that need revising?

I haven’t taken much of a stance on this issue, except that disclosure by Greenhouse needs to be made…but implying that Lathwick is a bald-faced liar because she hasn’t started a new post (in a blog that is updated about four times a week) to note that someone whose email she posted is retracting a sentence…that seems a bit foaming-at-the-mouth here. The guy is recalling a nasty closing attack, not any part of his thesis.