Re: Today

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:39:09 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
<longhornster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Traveling Ray
><travel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:05:30 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>><longhornster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So Traveling Ray
>>><travel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:42:32 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>><longhornster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No, Stanley, technically he does not. He reads my posts, *quoting*
>>>>>your posts. If no one quoted you, he would never read you, if he's
>>>>>telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean to state that you are now the owner of Stan's words?
>>>
>>>No, I don't. What a peculiar reading of that. But what I am saying,
>>>Raymond, is that a quotation of a work is not the same thing as the
>>>work. You cannot say you read Vanity Fair because you read a review of
>>>it once. You can only say you read the review.
>>
>>Ah, but it's not a review at all but a direct quote of Stan's words to
>>which he replies. You're really stretching now, Ivor. REALLY
>>stretching.
>
>Reviews don't have direct quotations?

Of course they do. In full context, no less. Unless the reviewer is
being dishonest like the way Josh quoted Barbara Bush out of context
for his own purpose.

>And having direct quotations makes them the original?

It makes them exactly equal. That's the premise behind quotations.

>>>>You've got to be joking, Ivor, you genius. You're "joshing" me here. Right?
>>>
>>>I'm not in the least responsible for your slowness on the uptake,
>>>Raymond.
>>
>>That whizzing sound you hear is my rapid acceleration past you. You're
>>beating a dead horse. Stan's words are being responded to by Josh on a
>>regular basis.
>
>Yes, I know. His *words* are.

As exact equals to his posts, Josh is replying to Stan. He's
addressing him, not you.

>> There's no distinction between Stan's original post and
>>words from those posts that you leave as attributed quotes.
>
>If you had said "between the words in Stan's...", I'd agree. I don't
>doctor quoted posts very often.

I don't recall seeing you ever do that. Perhaps as a joke you might.

>> Anyone who
>>reads your posts knows who authored those words and can clearly see
>>who is responding to them.
>
>No. They can't be sure I didn't doctor them.

There's no reason to presume you did. If Josh replies to Stan's words
which you have doctored, it falls in step with his failure to verify
the usage of anything else he quotes.

This isn't the first time Josh has used a cite and neglected to read
the entire article which actually countered his own argument in its
conclusion. Almost all of his learned <cough> economics assumptions
are examples of that practice.
--
Ray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Today
    ... It's my posts that are the reviews here. ... Josh is not reviewing ... Clearly if I quote a book, ... the review is not "exactly equal" to the book in any sense. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... So Traveling Ray ... It's my posts that are the reviews here. ... Josh is not reviewing ... originals from the point of view of the reader. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... No reason, it's just magic. ... So Traveling Ray ... You can only say you read the review. ... >words from those posts that you leave as attributed quotes. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... So Traveling Ray ... >>Gekko's and my posts are much like letters to the editor since Josh ... >Have I defended the "rationale", or have I simply suggested Stan was ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... So Traveling Ray ... >>your posts. ... Raymond, is that a quotation of a work is not the same thing as the ... You can only say you read the review. ...
    (misc.writing)
Loading