Re: Je neco shnileho v tomto clanku

On Feb 20, 1:16=A0pm, Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> o...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 7:38 am, Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> o...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 11:10 pm, "Paul J Kriha"
> >>> <paul.nospam.kr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> "Karel Kriz" <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>news:karel-0744BC.07321919022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> In article <fpelj9$5e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>> =A0Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Karel Kriz wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>>>> =A0Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The camera does not lie: Former centres of learning and
intellect=
ual
> >>>>>>>> diversity are now indoctrination sites systemically dedicated
to =
the
> >>>>>>>> abbreviation of human curiosity and the alienation of students
fr=
om
> >>>>>>>> Western
> >>>>>>>> civilization.
> >>>>>>>> I often wonder where in Canada I could "go home again" in the
21s=
t
> >>>>>>>> century.
> >>>>>>>> I have one simple, symbolic criterion: a learning centre that
wou=
ld 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
Ame=
rica.
> >>>>>>>> That's a tall order nowadays. I only know one three-year arts
pro=
gram 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? =A0Or just glanced over it?"
> >>>>> glanced =3D scanned more or less. So what's the problem?
> >>>> You fool! Where have you been since you got off the boat?
> >>>> You _quoted_ Frank. When you put something in quotes
> >>>> it means you quote (i.e. repeat) exactly what the person said.
> >>>> That is the very purpose of the quotes to distinguish quotations
> >>>> from paraphrasing.
> >>> Do not use quotation marks for
> >>> indirect quotations.
> >> Q.E.D.
>
> >> --
>
> >> <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Frank, it seems to me obvious that Kriz used the quotation marks not
> > as direct quotation but in the "unusual" way that is =A0quite usual in
> > English. So your "Q.E.D." is not convincing.
>
> It did not seem obvious to me. =A0I surely did not perceived his
statement=
s
> as irony.
>
> Cheers
> Frank
>
> --
>
> <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank, be reasonable. I myself do not claim, that I fully agree with
everything Karel Kriz writes. In fact I do not!
In many aspects my own views are diametrically different than his.

What I am saying is that putting quotation marks around one word does
not necessarily mean that he pretended to qoute what you have actualy
wrote.
I think that I brought enough evidence, that putting quotation marks
around one word does not necessarily mean attempt for direct
quotation.
I have also added additional excerpts showing that it is not
necesarilly  "irony"  that quotation marks arround a single word
indicate.
And sure he has explicitely wrote, that he did not mean to directly
qoute your statement. I think that I showed sufficiently that it is a
legitimate part of English language to use qoutation marks in a way
other than exact direct qouting. Does it mean that it leads to the
ambiguous situation. Yes it does. But first it does not mean what you
and Paul pretend and secondly it is really nothing very substantial.
So why you do not keep just with really essential parts of his
statement and forget the ambiguos  meanning of the word in qoutation
marks?

O.K.