Re: The 198

"Marc-Oliver Frisch" said:

> At any rate, the point was that you misrepresented my comment, turning it
> on its
> head by way of a double negation; I did not "refute" what you suggested --
> on
> the contrary, I asserted it (...or something broadly similar, at least),
> in
> order to refute your point.

I paraphrased (dishonestly by way of inversion or not) your refute. Because
I was not quoting you, "that" was introduced as a conjunction. "Refuted,"
in this instance, was being used very similarly to "said."

My "point," eh? You: "I'd already refuted your earlier assertion that it
wasn't obvious from the title of the book and from the comments in the
e-mail." Again, I'm having trouble finding this supposed assertion. I may
have insinuated that the title and e-mail weren't sufficient or competent
evidence, but did not state so prior to your supposed "refute."

> You stated that you "obviously" didn't mean what you said, apparently
> because
> you didn't repeat it down the line. That sounds like a defense to me,
> implying
> that I should have recognized that you didn't mean what you said, and
> should
> therefore have ignored it.

"Yes, it seems I did make one claim about the book as a 'reference piece,'
but that was obviously not an integrally important part of my argument, as
it was not repeated."

I stated that I "obviously" didn't much mind what I said, since I didn't
repeat it down the line. I am completely lost as to how any of that can be
construed to indicate "that I 'obviously' didn't mean what I said." Even if
I meant for the statement to be complete as posted, it was inconsequential
to my conclusions about the book's narrative; nothing about whether I
intended the phrase precisely as given.

> You're again making up unreasonable premises. It's not up to you to
> decide to
> which degree your comments deserve responses, but to anyone who's
> bothering to
> respond to them to begin with.

Not quite. While those who respond must decide what they will respond to,
there can most definitely be a reasonably non-subjective evalution of the
degree to which comments deserve acknowledgement.

> : I wasn't aware that a requirement existed for you agree with my
> assertion to
> : successfully understand my "point," since you wondered what it was.
>
> Well, it does, because the fact that I find your assertion unreasonable to
> begin
> with is a central part of why I don't see your point.

Do you even know what my allegedly "unreasonable" assertion in this instance
is?

> : Which is not an issue. The issue is that you failed to establish
> certain
> : things in your book.
>
> According, we recall, to premises you made up that I don't happen to agree
> are
> reasonable. You won't change that by simply repeating your claim.

And you won't invalidate my claim (supported by your published writings) by
declaring your refusal to acknowledge it.

> Again, the words "The 198 Files" on the cover and "Mutant Database" in the
> section header, in conjunction with the information provided to you on
> page one,
> state just that, so I don't think you have a point there.

Again, your "clues" and implications do not state so, that is why they are
merely clues. Even allowing your "clues," they do not solicit the "obvious"
conclusion you assert.

The e-mail confirms 198 as the "current" number of mutants[0] left in the
world, and states that the Office of National Emergency has access[1] to
government mutant files in a database individually accessible with personal
access codes. An "Executive Order"[2] requires that O*N*E has "authority
over all extant intelligence relating to all remaining members of Homo
sapiens superior." The core of the book consists of files from an O*N*E
"Mutant Database"[3] apparently accessed by VCOOPER (assumed to be Valerie
Cooper).

[1] and [2] *imply* that the files shown from [3] are related to remaining
mutants. You would then have readers jump to the narratively unmerited
conclusion that *every* character profiled in the "Mutant Database" is still
a mutant. That is unreasonable. That is a conclusion not properly
supported by the evidence in the book.

> : Quite true, but Jeremiah "Dr. Manhattan" Muldoon's entry specifically
> states
> : that he was "born a mutant," which makes one wonder whether he still is.
> : Unlike Lexington's profile, Muldoon's paragraph omits his personal M-Day
> : outcome.
>
> Sure. Why is any of that relevant to the discussion again?

Being a book which ostensibly exists to identify "current" mutants, it is a
glaring omission. When this book identifies a mutant, readers expect to
know about that character's status post M-Day. In this instance, even the
consensus understanding of the book doesn't answer the obvious question.
It's nothing of particular relevance to the rest of the discussion, but it
was introduced as, more or less, unrelated.

--
the X-Database
http://www.fermium.org


.

Relevant Pages