[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
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jaime Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Â Personally, I think that anyonbe who gets involved with a documentarian and
> expects everything that they say to be presented as it was stated originally
> and not edited up is as hopeless as Tantalus. Matt's interview was seemingly
> ripe for haviong an entire chuck removed from the butt-end as "unnecessary"
> or "too long, didn't read," especially since virtually everything he said
> before it, with careful construement, could be read as being EXACTLY what he
> said, and what was meant to be said by Matt; it is clear that Mike Taylor
> (and Matt Wedel, the aggrieved party and his friend) do not think so, so I
> wonder if they are too close to be objective. No, I do not think Matt was a
> victim of quote-mining, as a strict reading of a causal definition (perish
> the thought) requires taking the aUthor out of context.
Matt said "not X". They cut it down to "X". If that's not
quote-mining, nothing is.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?