On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:11:45 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Yes, it is. Check out the stats on average height by country. There
is a 10" difference between the lowest and the highest
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.
But the "objective" value of tall is subjective, and largely based on
the number of hits it gets, looking at the history.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG