Reflectorites
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:33:19 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I regard this "`out-of-context quote' defence as just a ploy. If
>>Tedd was interested in getting at the truth, he would debate what
>>the quotes actually say. If they were out-of-context, Tedd could
>>show that they are by citing the wider context and win that point.
TH>Why bother? You're an old hand at using quotes for propaganda
>purposes, and you're skilled at not quite crossing the line into
>blatant misquoting.
Misquoting is like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. I either
misquote or I don't. "Blatant" adds nothing to it. If I don't cross the line
into "blatant misquoting" then I don't misquote at all.
TH>Whatever I wrote, you could go on insisting
>that your interpretation was correct and non-evolutionists would
>side with you, evolutionists would side with me. Instead of
>productive discussions on what you and I actually believe, we
>would likely be sidetracked into hair-splitting and accusations
>of word games. Instead of discussing evidence, we would be
>posting dictionary definitions of English words. Painful,
>tedious, and eventually pointless.
No. If Tedd claims that I have made an out-of-context quote, he should be
able to state objectively what the context is and why my quote does not fit
it.
If I am wrong I will admit it and thank Tedd. I have no desire, or need, to
post out-of-context quotes.
TH>Could it be that this is what you want? Such a game is certainly
>a lot easier to appear to win then specifically talking about
>details, issues and evidence and actually defending arguments
>raised...
Tedd obviously hasn't been around long enough to know me. He would
find that I am happy to debate *anything*: "details, issues and evidence and
actually defending arguments raised...", and even "out-of-context quotes."!
I think even my worst enemies on this Reflector would reluctantly vouch
for the fact that in these last 5-6 years, I have shirked *nothing*. Frankly I
could not live with my conscience if I did.
Besides, it is *Tedd* who is playing this "out-of-context" quote "game", in
order that we cannot get around to discussing "details, issues and evidence
and actually defending arguments raised...".
If Tedd really wants to discuss the "details, issues and evidence and
actually defending arguments raised..." then he should either: 1) support
with *evidence* his claim that one of my quotes is out-of-context, so we
can resolve it and then move on to discussing "details, issues and evidence
and actually defending arguments raised..."; or 2) simply discuss what the
quote says, as part of the "details, issues and evidence and actually
defending arguments raised..."; for the point in question.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The process of evolution appears not to be a matter of natural selection of
chance variations of adaptational value. Rather it is working upon some
definite law that we do not yet comprehend. The law probably began its
operations with the commencement of life, and it is carrying this on
according to some definite plan." (Willis J.C., "The Course of Evolution:
By Differentiation or Divergent Mutation Rather Than By Selection,"
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1940, p.191)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 22 2000 - 19:31:11 EDT