From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 11:30:38 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <565coB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >If all you have to offer is "Hey, the answer to that question might be a
> >complete fabrication", then I'm afraid the answer I have to give you is that
> >every other 'fact' in the FAQ file *might* be a complete fabrication. 
> >However, those 'facts' were gained from a large number of people, and have
> >withstood scrutiny for many months.  Unless you can show that something whic
> >has been in the file for months *is* a complete fabrication, I am going to
> >let it stand.
> 
> Fine.  If that's your policy, then you should allow the words "Mr. President"
> to remain in that item, since it hasn't been shown that those words were a
> complete fabrication.

That would certainly be consistent with my policy.  However, I see no reason
to keep the two words as they are completely irrelevant to the point of the
item.

> You shouldn't just arbitrarily sweep this inconsistency under the rug.  That'
> exactly the tactic Fundamentalists use when inconsistencies in the Bible are
> pointed out.

Firstly, the Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired.  The FAQ file is not.

Secondly, the Bible is inconsistent within itself.  The FAQ file is not, it
is only inconsistent with the assumption that one will not greet a politician
as "Mr President" unless he is president.  Such an assumption is demonstrably
false, so I'm therefore not too worried about this 'inconsistency'.

> >It's a deletion of two words which are of no importance to the point being
> >made.
> 
> Not if the point being made is "Atheists think George Bush is against them." 

Why?  What difference does it make to that point how George Bush was greeted?

Maybe I should include information about what colour tie Robert Sherman was
wearing?  Perhaps that's why George said atheists weren't citizens?

> However, if the point being made is that Bush is on record as being against
> atheists, then the words ARE important.

The words he actually said, yes.  These aren't words he actually said. 
They're not even part of the question he was asked.  You might as well argue
that I'm being misleading by witholding information about what had been said
to Mr Bush immediately before Robert Sherman talked to him.

> >The important bit is "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
> >Atheists?".  It doesn't really matter if the actual words spoken were "Mr.
> >Bush, what will you do to win the votes of Americans who are Atheists?" or
> >"Excuse me, Mr. Vice-President, what will you do to win the votes of America
> >who are Atheists?"
> 
> Before that bit can be important, one has to address the question of whether
> George Bush ever said it or not.

OK.  A number of people have cited evidence that he did give the answer
quoted to the question above.  It's up to you to either shoot down that
evidence, or come up with some contradictory evidence.

> >No, I just have reason to doubt that they were said, and I see no reason to
> >keep them as they are *completely unimportant* to the point being made.
> 
> As they cast doubt on whether Bush said anything of the kind, the are *very
> important* to the point being made.

Please explain why they are important to the point being made.

> >I am not trying to propogate any sort of information about how Robert Sherma
> >addressed George Bush at O'Hare airport before asking him a question.  Are
> >you suggesting that the FAQ file as it now is will mislead people on that
> >oh-so-vital issue?
> 
> I'm suggesting that the FAQ item with those words removed will cause people t
> lend more credence to the article than is justified at this point.

Why, how much credence do you think is justified when reading a Usenet
article?

>                                                                    The item
> managed to make it into the FAQ apparently without this discrepency causing
> anybody to question its veracity.

There were two sources of the quote.  The first only quoted the central part
of the exchange, and was added to the FAQ file without comment.  I suspect
(though I'm not certain) it didn't include the "Mr President" salutation.

A second article was later posted which included lots of other information,
like the name of the airport, the date, Robert Sherman's name, and so on.  I
deleted the old one and inserted the new, because it gave *more* information
to let people check out the quote for themselves.

I wish I'd never bloody bothered now.

> >Suppose I say "Mr Epstein, you are full of crap".
> >
> >Suppose you then quote that by saying "mathew said to me 'You are full of
> >crap'".
> >
> >Would you really call that "intentional misquotation"?  Would I be right to
> >demand that you cease posting such a misleading misquotation?
> 
> Since the salutation was one that was not applicable to George Bush until six
> months after the interview was alleged to have taken place, it is an importan
> part of the quoted matter.

Then suppose I say "Mrs Lydick, you are rationalizing", and you quote me by
saying "You told me 'You are rationalizing'"?

> >I am not altering anything based on my "desire for it to read as [I] desire"
> >(Hey, did you spot the intentional misquotation there?  Most heinous, eh?)
> >I am deleting from a quotation two completely unimportant 'filler' words
> >which I have reason to suspect were not spoken.
> 
> And if you've reason to suspect those two words were not spoken, why do you n
> also have reason to suspect that the entire interview was a fabrication.

Why indeed?  No reason at all, as I've seen at least one other independent
posting quoting the same question and answer.


mathew
-- 
Buddy, can you spare a paradigm?

Newsgroups: alt.atheism