From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Tolerance (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:52:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24170
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <26282@optima.cs.arizona.edu> shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes:
>I didn't see any misstatement of your position in the referenced
>(and  conveniently unquoted) article.  The response was to a very
What was EXcluded was the point that it was NOT the
fact that a disagreement exists that constituted any
disrespect, it was the misstatement of your position.
That, by itself, is a mistatement of MY position.
This is called cheating. (And this seems to be
what Lowry can't seem to get through HIS head, too.)

>practice when writing responses to articles to extract just enough
>to provide context, saving time and money in article propogation.
Not if it changes the nature or meaning of the included
material, and the material is then attacked on its 
"new" meaning.

>I don't see anything wrong with quoting part of an article
>and making a comment based on that quote (unless the meaning
>is substantially changed).  The article you are responding
Which it is.  That is the point.  When one extracts some
words from context and/or qualification, and then replies to
them in a hostile fashion, without accounting for context
or qualification, that's misstatement.

>Which you fail to do yourself by not including the relevent
>text.
Nonsense.  You seem to be unable to understand WHAT I'm
objecting to.  Perhaps when you understand that, you'll
see what was included, and for what reason.

>The comment about "brats" might be an exaggeration, but it is
>one valid interpretation of what I said in another article.
Fair enough, you note that I qualified my comment.
If, however, it is an exaggeration, then I must object
to it.  Exaggerating one's opponent's position is the
precisely misrepresenting it.  That constitutes an
attemt to overcome logic with emotion.

>I do not consider the article in question to be a serious
>misstatement of my position.  The rhetorical device of
>exaggerating an opposing viewpoint for the purpose of
>satire is common and very useful.  We educated people need
>to recognize these things.  It didn't bother me.
I don't care if it bothers you.  You have stipulated that
"...might be an exaggeration..."  That's the point,
especially since I've seen clear instances of what I must
call extreme and prejudicial exaggeration.  Now, the individual
who prompted this article is hardly the only one using such
destructive methods, as I've said before. I'd hope some of
the other people realize what they're doing, and cease,
rather than attempt to defend their actions.

Exaggerating another's position is a disservice to both the
debate and to the individual whose position is misrepresented.
Educated people should well realize the destructive nature
of such rhetorical devices, and reject them outright.
Perhaps you are of another, less concerned generation,
if so, wait a few years, and you may come to share my
concerns about polarization and destruction of communication
methods.

>I resent your inclusion of such a "copyright notice" and am unsure of
>its legality.  It does shed some light on the nature of your earlier
>comments (though your purpose is still a little murky to me :-)
I think you need to explain this.  What light does it shed
on my earlier comments?  Why are you "unsure of its
legality" under Berne?  Why does it offend you that I
choose to make clear that I do not wish my articles to propigate
past the traditional "USENET" like services?  Why do you object
to my control of my own intellectual property? (While I don't
think misc.kids is a particular problem in that light, I have
experienced, shall we say, problems with substantial parts of
articles moving well beyond USENET into commerical media via
other newsgroups.)  Clearly, the quoting of parts of the
article in debate is "fair use", so it doesn't affect the
debate here.

Why don't you explain this privately, though?  We don't
need to bother misc.kids with the copyright issue, as far
as I can tell.
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: misc.kids