From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:13:51 GMT

In article <565coB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>tke@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.j.epstein) 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 which
>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.


>But I can't help thinking that it's actually pretty damn irrelevant whether
>George Bush was greeted "Mr President", "Mr Bush", or "Hey, Georgie Baby". 
>The important details are the question itself and the answer he gave.  Do you
>have any (non-circumstantial) reason for suspecting that those are
>inaccurately represented?
>[ I have to admit it might be relevant if the alleged greeting had been "Hey,
>  spam-head!" or "Come here, you tax-fattened hyena!" ]

An important associated question is, "Did George Bush actually say what he's
quoted as saying?"  Now, I don't think it would've been out of character for
Bush to have said what he's quoted as having said, BUT, as I pointed out in the
post that started this thread, the words "Mr. President" cast some doubt on the
authenticity of the whole item.  In my opinion, the best thing to do with that
item would be to add a note pointing out that the salutation casts some doubt
on the whole thing, until such time as either:
	1)  Someone can actually authenticate it and give the exact text (in
	    which case the note can be dropped or changed to point out that the
	    newspaper article DID, in fact, for reasons unknown, include that
	    salutation) or
	2)  Someone can confirm that the newspaper in question did not publish
	    the article in the first place (in which case the item can be
	    changed to be "No, there's no evidence that Bush said that atheists
	    shouldn't be considered to be citizens.").
You shouldn't just arbitrarily sweep this inconsistency under the rug.  That's
exactly the tactic Fundamentalists use when inconsistencies in the Bible are
pointed out.

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

>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 Americans
>who are Atheists?"

Before that bit can be important, one has to address the question of whether
George Bush ever said it or not.  Circumstantial evidence that indicates the
whole thing MAY be a fabrication shouldn't be excised for the sake of making
the item more compelling.

>>                                                                        The
>> only justification you have for deleting what could be a relevant quotation
>> is that you know that indeed, the words were not said.
>
>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.

>I am not trying to propogate any sort of information about how Robert Sherman
>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 to
lend more credence to the article than is justified at this point.  The item
managed to make it into the FAQ apparently without this discrepency causing
anybody to question its veracity.  Until you can definitively say that the
salutation was NOT used in the exchange, you shouldn't remove it from the item.


>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 important
part of the quoted matter.

>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 not
also have reason to suspect that the entire interview was a fabrication.

>I don't know why you're so bent out of shape over this whole business.  Does
>anybody else care about those two words?  I suspect not.

I do.  I'm the person who started this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism