I’m not sure why you think my opinion of Snow is “not grounded in any basis of judgment.” I’m judging based on the fact that he (1) lied to us, (2) abetted the deceptions of an administration he apparently had strong disagreements with, and (3) fell short in his public life of the very values Davidson works to bequeath to its students. Since you haven’t contested (1) and (2), I assume you don’t think these are mere flights of fancy.

You write, “But moreover, ‘by NO means’ is an exceptionally strong choice of words for judging the character of a person you never really met.” Not at all. Your letter supports the idea that Snow was a “really genuine guy”, and the adverb makes all the difference. You weren’t vouching for Snow’s being “fitfully” or “personally” genuine, both of which would have been narrow claims; a really genuine person is, under any plausible reading, fairly consistently so in all aspects of their lives. But again, in his public life as press secretary Snow was consistently not genuine (or, more charitably, genuinely malign), so unqualified praise here would be unwarranted.

The idea that the absence of personal acquaintance should prevent us from issuing emphatic judgments about public figures is also risible. Did you ever smoke a cigar with Che Guevara? Or go to mass with Mother Teresa? No? Well, I’m guessing you have very strong opinions on those two, and I doubt your overall opinion would change very much if you met acquaintances of theirs who assured you Guevara was a considerate friend or that Mother Teresa had a mean streak because–and here’s the key part–strong statements aren’t exhaustive statements. We can always accommodate a person’s redeeming (or negative) traits within a generally negative (or positive) conception. More to the point, if I say, “Suzy Q was by no means a saint”, it doesn’t mean Suzy Q was incapable of goodness or even that she was a bad person. It just means exactly what it says: calling her a saint would badly miss the mark because she didn’t meet the high bar of saintliness. Ditto Tony Snow and his being really (i.e., very or essentially) genuine.

I’m not sure why you think my opinion of Snow is “not grounded in any basis of judgment.” I’m judging based on the fact that he (1) lied to us, (2) abetted the deceptions of an administration he apparently had strong disagreements with, and (3) fell short in his public life of the very values Davidson works to bequeath to its students. Since you haven’t contested (1) and (2), I assume you don’t think these are mere flights of fancy.

You write, “But moreover, ‘by NO means’ is an exceptionally strong choice of words for judging the character of a person you never really met.” Not at all. Your letter supports the idea that Snow was a “really genuine guy”, and the adverb makes all the difference. You weren’t vouching for Snow’s being “fitfully” or “personally” genuine, both of which would have been narrow claims; a really genuine person is, under any plausible reading, fairly consistently so in all aspects of their lives. But again, in his public life as press secretary Snow was consistently not genuine (or, more charitably, genuinely malign), so unqualified praise here would be unwarranted.

The idea that the absence of personal acquaintance should prevent us from issuing emphatic judgments about public figures is also risible. Did you ever smoke a cigar with Che Guevara? Or go to mass with Mother Teresa? No? Well, I’m guessing you have very strong opinions on those two, and I doubt your overall opinion would change very much if you met acquaintances of theirs who assured you Guevara was a considerate friend or that Mother Teresa had a mean streak because–and here’s the key part–strong statements aren’t exhaustive statements. We can always accommodate a person’s redeeming (or negative) traits within a generally negative (or positive) conception. More to the point, if I say, “Suzy Q was by no means a saint”, it doesn’t mean Suzy Q was incapable of goodness or even that she was a bad person. It just means exactly what it says: calling her a saint would badly miss the mark because she didn’t meet the high bar of saintliness. Ditto Tony Snow and his being really (i.e., very or essentially) genuine.

But moreover, “by NO means” is an exceptionally strong choice of words for judging the character of a person you never really met. Again, for a philosophy major, I’m surprised to find that your logic is so messy: what does it mean, Ashish, to be a “genuine” person? Are people, whether genuine or not, always consistent, and must one be consistent across public/private lines to be genuine, and by whose measure? I, for one, would like to hope that I am a genuine guy, but I certainly have my fair share of lies, deceptions (to myself and others), and often say one thing and do the other.

As to him interrupting you and not letting you finish — call it rude if you like, but to call it skillful isn’t to morally evaluate it. It was skillful in that he used tact to defuse your question, which was patently neither tactful nor productive, and not well formulated or presented. Your question began with a paragraph-like statement, which given the Q&A circumstances, struck several people sitting near me as rude in itself.

But moreover, “by NO means” is an exceptionally strong choice of words for judging the character of a person you never really met. Again, for a philosophy major, I’m surprised to find that your logic is so messy: what does it mean, Ashish, to be a “genuine” person? Are people, whether genuine or not, always consistent, and must one be consistent across public/private lines to be genuine, and by whose measure? I, for one, would like to hope that I am a genuine guy, but I certainly have my fair share of lies, deceptions (to myself and others), and often say one thing and do the other.

As to him interrupting you and not letting you finish — call it rude if you like, but to call it skillful isn’t to morally evaluate it. It was skillful in that he used tact to defuse your question, which was patently neither tactful nor productive, and not well formulated or presented. Your question began with a paragraph-like statement, which given the Q&A circumstances, struck several people sitting near me as rude in itself.

1. Joel echoed the view of Snow’s colleagues that Snow was a “really genuine guy.”
2. I pointed out that as a public servant and as a speaker at his alma mater that tirelessly stresses integrity to the members of its community, Snow was not above lying (do either of you dispute this?).
3. I concluded this is not consistent with being a genuine guy.

I didn’t say Snow was personally unpleasant or that Joel had an inordinate fondness of the memory he mentions. But if a person’s private virtues are the same as their public shortcomings, we do ourselves–and the complexity of our subjects–a disservice by attributing to them traits that only tell half the picture. There is no malice in the search for a textured view of a person.

As for Joel’s snide non sequitur about my own interaction with Snow, it appears he joins Snow’s boosters in being able to only conjure half the truth. Joel’s right that Snow swatted aside my question to end the exchange, but he omits or forgets how he did so: by interrupting me and not letting me finish what I was going to ask him. You can call that skillful if you like, but I suspect most would just call it rude.

1. Joel echoed the view of Snow’s colleagues that Snow was a “really genuine guy.”
2. I pointed out that as a public servant and as a speaker at his alma mater that tirelessly stresses integrity to the members of its community, Snow was not above lying (do either of you dispute this?).
3. I concluded this is not consistent with being a genuine guy.

I didn’t say Snow was personally unpleasant or that Joel had an inordinate fondness of the memory he mentions. But if a person’s private virtues are the same as their public shortcomings, we do ourselves–and the complexity of our subjects–a disservice by attributing to them traits that only tell half the picture. There is no malice in the search for a textured view of a person.

As for Joel’s snide non sequitur about my own interaction with Snow, it appears he joins Snow’s boosters in being able to only conjure half the truth. Joel’s right that Snow swatted aside my question to end the exchange, but he omits or forgets how he did so: by interrupting me and not letting me finish what I was going to ask him. You can call that skillful if you like, but I suspect most would just call it rude.