[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Taking control of the documentary situation, an immodest proposal

Let's just take this very slowly and carefully.

Matt said: "For a while it was thought that may be this was sort of
like a second brain to help control the back half of the body.  There
are a couple of misconceptions there", and went on to explain, clearly
and briefly what those misconceptions where.  This quote became "This
was sort of like a second brain to help control the back half of the

And this is NOT quote-mining?

Sorry, still not feelin' it.

2009/12/18 Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>:
> Mike Taylor wrote:
> <Jaime, it seems like you're saying that Dangerous Ltd. did not quote-mine 
> Matt Wedel.  I assume I must be misunderstanding you here, unless you didn't 
> actually READ Matt's account at       
>  http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/lies-damned-lies-and-clash-of-the-dinosaurs/or
>  indeed Dangerous Ltd.'s own account as reproduced at       
>  http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/clash-of-the-dinosaurs-dangerous-ltd-document-their-own-dishonest-editing/>
>   Really? Beacuse unless I'm mistaken -- and including Matt's offered 
> illustration, which argues the purpose of the swollen cavity is unknown (his 
> word) -- It actually differs from a quote-mine because they cut OFF a whole 
> segment past the first statement. Nothing was moved about, nor was it 
> "chopped up" in the sense that what is stated is misconstrued. What it was is 
> that the caveats that normally go along with popularistic discussions or 
> press releases are simply omitted, as is the actual data regarding the 
> swollen cavity.
>   The statement "One of the curious things about Sauropods is that they did 
> have a swelling in the spinal cord, in the neighborhood of their pelvis[.]" 
> This is 100% congruent with the first sentence you quoted. They further 
> write: "This was sort of like a second brain to help control the back half of 
> the body." and while this is a part of the original body of the statement, it 
> excludes Matt's immediate caveat: "[And for a while it was thought that may 
> be] this was sort of like a second brain to help control the back half of the 
> body."
>   The actual full apparent quote, which Dangerous Ltd states "In the 
> transcript of the final edit, you appeared to be saying[,]" there is more 
> than certainly enough room that, despite the immediate reaction of:
>   "There it is in black and white. I was very clearly explaining why a
> misconception is no longer held, and they edited the tape to make me
> regurgitate the misconception as if it was not just a commonly accepted
> fact, but a fact that I accepted."
>   [Note, it is NOT in Black and white, it is hardly clear when the cautionary 
> language of the statement of Dangerous' intentions as they allege are printed 
> with the phrase "you appeared to be saying." This, however seemingly wrongly 
> you or anyone may think, gives them a leeway that the accusation of 
> intentional misconstruement is false.
>   Now, I do not think Dangerous Ltd appears to have deliberately quote mined. 
> Wedel actually said everything in the very context it was derived at; the 
> caveat was removed, but the cautionary language "this was sort of like" 
> remains, especially given that Matt continued to describe how the spinsal 
> cord actually plays a fundamental role in controlling the body. The issue 
> here is a conflation of the idea that ONLY the brain controls ANY part of the 
> body, and that transmission of signal cannot be produced initially anywhere 
> else. We simply do not KNOW this to be a fact, and the cautionary language is 
> also included in Matt's included figure, as seen at Darren's blog. So where 
> again was Matt meant to say something he never did?
>   To be precise, the process of quote mining is derived from the fallacy of 
> quoting out of context, as seen here: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context. In this 
> fallacy, a logical or debating style in order to appeal to a nonlogical 
> argument which one's opponent may not be prepared to refute and thus not able 
> to argue against,  portions of quoted material are "moved about" in order to 
> create a string which is different from the original structure. This, once 
> again, did not occur with Wedel's statement, and is thus not a quote mine. 
> The very phrase "quote mine" is becoming a buzzword whose context is itself 
> missed by many who use it in order to (you guessed it!) propagandize the 
> statement on which it is used. Is this logical? I would not think so.
>   This argument I make does NOT stem from any disagreement on the part of 
> either Matt or Mike in this regard, just their statements (which I understand 
> is difficult to separate for some). I do not feel that the phrase, which is 
> being tossed around now by others on their own blogs and thus propagandizing 
> the debate, is being used correctly, but is going to receive more attention 
> because of this form of argument. Even if it is being inaccurately applied, 
> the intention of the argument for quote mining, as is used in another forum 
> which we can't discuss here, is to shame or compel the "offending" party into 
> some sort of response, especially to perpetuate the argument. So the real 
> issue being this is what is the purpose for arguing that
> Cheers,
> Jaime A. Headden
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the 
> experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination 
> to do so." --- Douglas Adams (Last Chance to See)
> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different 
> language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: 
> to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking 
> at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/