From: tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:46:10 GMT

In article <LR8aoB25w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein) writes:
>> Let me see if I got this right:  The article reports the interviewer 
>> addressing the not-as-of-yet President as, "Mr. President."  This
>> might be an indication that there was a typographical error, or it
>> might be an indication that the entire article was a poorly-done
>> hoax. In fact, it could be indicative of many things.
>
>For example, I saw on a TV report someone sucking up to Clinton by addressing
>him as "Mr President".

No problem there, that is another of the many possible reasons.  Other than re-
demonstrating that your intent to delete the offending words has no basis on
any knowledge of the truth of the matter, what is your point?  Mine is *not*
that Mr. Bush said (or did not say) the simple-minded drivel attributed to him 
in the article. My point is that you, while having no knowledge of the facts of
the matter, have taken it upon youself to edit the article to suit your purp-
oses.  This is nothing less than blatant dishonesty.  If you stated that you
would not republish the article untill you were able to verify its contents,
we would not be having this discussion. Similarly, if you had chosen to merely
report the contents of the original article without editing there would be
little reason to impune you as a "yellow" journalist. No doubt there were 
many honest ways you could have dealt with the whole issue.

>
>> You have your own personal guess on the cause of the inconsistency
>> and seem to find that wild guess so lame that you need to solicit "a
>> better suggestion" from usenet readers.
>
>Ptbtphthth!
>
>I just presented a hypothesis for the inconsistency, and solicited
>alternative hypotheses.  I haven't decided on the One True Answer yet, and I
>don't see why I should until I've heard a few possibilities.

This appears to be nothing more than a restatement of my obsevation
phrased in such a way that for some reason, you think it is more reasonable.

You miss the point.  You should not wait untill you have heard a few pos-
sibilities, you should wait untill you know that altering the quotation
in the manner you intend is a correction to an inaccurate quotation. The
only justification you have for deleting what could be a relevant quotation
is that you know that indeed, the words were not said. By your own con-
tinued admissions, you don't have a clue as to weather this is true. In fact
you have supplied at least one case in which they might have been said exactly
as quoted.  Solicitation of "alternative hypotheses" from which you will
decide on "the One True Answer" is obviously invalid. The greater the number
of alternative hypotheses that are offered (assuming these are also just
wild guesses) the more clear it becomes that all of these "hypotheses" could
not be true. You would then make a selection of your "One True Answer" based
not on what you know to be true, but on what seems reasonable to you, per-
sonally (a chilling thought, based upon what you have thus shown you think
reasonable to be). 

>
>>                                          Armed with no evedence whatsoever,
>> rather than seeking the truth of the matter, you choose to  delete (falsify,
>> corrupt, intentionally mis-inform, LIE ABOUT) a portion of the "information"
>> which you intend to propagate.
>

You have yet to demonstrate that the above paragraph is anything but exactly
true.

>It's called quotation, Mr Epstein.  If you think the quotation as is now in

Based upon your own statements that you intend to alter a quotation based upon
what is nothing more than your desire for it to read as you desire, it as cal-
led "misquotation": In this case "intentional miquotation."

>the file is out of context or misrepresents your pal Mr Bush, why don't you
>look up the reference and tell us what you find?

Once again, you are exactly wrong. I am not concerned that the article
misrepresents Mr. Bush. I am concerned that you *intentionally* mis-
represent the article: and I am alarmingly-so, since you not
only defend this indefensible behavior, you seem quite pleased with it.  

This has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. It 
has everything to do with you. Everything which is fundamentally dishonest
about your stated intentions would be equally dishonest if applied to a story
about Mr. Clinton.  I am under no burden to do any legwork for you. Indeed,
your parting remark, "why don't you look up the reference and tell us what
you find?" should rest soundly on your own shoulders. That is exactly the
question you were (and still are) obligated to ask of yourself prior to 
broadcasting adulterated quotations.

>
>
>mathew
>-- 
>Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
>

Truly,

Tom

Newsgroups: alt.atheism