In article <fpev8i$8ve$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Frank Bures <feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Karel Kriz wrote:
> > In article <fpelj9$5ep$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Frank Bures <feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Karel Kriz wrote:
> >>> In article <fovata$uie$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>> Frank Bures <feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The camera does not lie: Former centres of learning and
intellectual
> >>>> diversity are now indoctrination sites systemically dedicated to
the
> >>>> abbreviation of human curiosity and the alienation of students from
> >>>> Western
> >>>> civilization.
> >>>>
> >>>> I often wonder where in Canada I could "go home again" in the 21st
> >>>> century.
> >>>> I have one simple, symbolic criterion: a learning centre that would
> >>>> still
> >>>> hold up for critical admiration the greatness in the writings of
Thomas
> >>>> Wolfe, a hard-drinking, aggressively hetero***ual white male from a
> >>>> racist
> >>>> background, whose creative inspiration was Western civilization's
> >>>> literary
> >>>> treasure trove and whose overriding theme was his passion for
America.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a tall order nowadays. I only know one three-year arts
program in
> >>>> Canada today I'd be glad to call my intellectual home, and I fear
for
> >>>> its
> >>>> survival.
> >>> This article blew me away. Bures accused me of just "scanning it",
but
> >>> NO-OOO, I read every word.
> >> To put words in someone mouth is not too ethical, but it happens.
> >> To intentionally misquote someone is reaching new low even for you.
> >> There is no phrase "scanning it" anywhere in my original post.
> >
> > A new low? Even for me? What on earth are you talking about?
> >
> > You wrote:
> > "Karel,
> >
> > have you read the article? Or just glanced over it?"
> >
> > glanced = scanned more or less. So what's the problem?
> >
> >
> > K
>
> Well, you obviously do not have ANY experience with attributing and
> quoting an original text in your own creations.
>
> Let me give you a short and simple explanation.
>
> Let's say I write:
> Karel Kriz wrote that the article blew his mind.
> Obviously you did not say that, you said the it "blew [you] away".
> However, as I did not use quotation marks, my statement is not a quote
and
> as such it is permitted in civilized circles.
> OTOH, if you write
> Bures accused me of just "scanning it", you quote me directly and
therefore
> you have to be able to prove, that I wrote "scanning it" in my original
> text. Obviously I did not and therefore you intentionally misquoted me,
in
> other words you put words I never wrote right into my mouth.
> That's a strict no-no in civilized circles.
>
> And BTW, I did not accuse you of anything. As the sentence you quoted
> above proves - I asked you if "[you] just glanced over [the article]".
I
> did not accuse you of doing it nor I said you did it.
>
> If I ask you "did you see the movie XYZ", I am not assuming or implying
> that you did - I am just asking.
>
> So, to summarize: Either you have basic problems with comprehension of
> written text (which I doubt), or you intentionally change the meaning of
> other peoples' posts so that you can argue with something they did not
> write. An English term "erecting a straw man" comes to mind.
>
> Cheers
> Frank
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You are raising an issue
that I consider insignificant to even address. Pick on something with
some meaning to it. This is not worth it.
K
|
