Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:44:09 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Well, so what? The list's criteria are based on _absolute_ height, not _relative_ height, and as long as this is pointed out explicitly in the description of the list I don't see the problem. We've got a list of the largest asteroids in absolute terms too.
Right, so it's only geographically, temporally and ethnically biased, which makes it - er, still crap :-)
It doesn't include or exclude based on geography, time period, or ethnicity, so it's actually _un_biased on those criteria. The exclusion based on whether one plays basketball is a bit of an odd exception to that, I admit, but could be handled with that subarticle split I suggested earlier.
In any event, I still don't see the problem with selective lists in general as long as the criteria for selection is objectively described. This is a list of people who are taller than a specific height, a clear criteria on which to judge inclusion or exclusion. Whether the subject is "crap" or not is a separate issue.