Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 14:06:43
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You have written that my paraphrasing of ayuda's post, by editing, [... substantually changes the meaning...]. You say that this is [misrepresentation]. I beg to differ with you and consider your post to have the potential to falsely portrey me to others as someone that [misrepresents] what others write. You even had the jesus quote directed at me for paraphrasing ayuda's statement as if there is a spiritual something that I am in violation to, and I am not. I am deeply hurt by what you have written in your post for I have no intentions to misrepresent anyone, or to tresspass willfully to jesus, even though I am not a member of christiandom, for on the contrary, my editing and paraphrasing of posts is only to simplify and to direct that part that I am writing about to the whole post so that focus could be made to that part, in general. I have seen others paraphrase and it is common knowlege that paraphrasing is not the same as quoting. If someone wanted to go back to the main part of the post that I am replying to, they have several options to do that.
Let us now examine the two statements, one in toto, and the other with the part left out and see if there is a [material] difference in the meaning of the two.
The statement by ayuda:
[...I beleive that people that are incapable of understanding {that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with Dr. Bob about those parameters}, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
The paraphased statement by me:
{...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave this site alone...].
My communications expert examined to see if there is a material difference in the two, and his answer is,[no}.
The reasons given are that, first, the people that are in the left out part are {all} the people on this board, because evryone enters this site in the same manner. There are not two different classes of people here, one that signs an agreement to use the site in a particular manner, as ayuda wrote, and some other class that does not sign an agreement to use the site in a particular manner.
Secondly, the people that ayuda write that have {emotional problems}, are still in the paraphrase whether the ommited part is placed in or out of the statement, which is what the paraphrase is focusing on. So that part if ayuda's post is retained, and the ommited part has no bearing on that being retained.
Third, let us focus on the part that says,[...who keep arguing with Dr. Bob about those parameters...]. You see, those people are understood to be invited by Dr. Bob to post on the administrative board those concersns, for he has written that he is [... open to feedback...]. It goes without saying that those people are there for that express purpose, not because they have {emotional problems}. So my expert says that my paraphrase was very good, becuae it brought into focus the main issues and exposed them by ommitting the part that I omited which was irrelevant to the aspect of portreying people that use the administrative board as having emotional problems.
And next, the people that could voice any perception that there is misrepresentaion by me, according to my expert, I am not responsible for them to make any rush to judgement about what is left out, for what is left out is not a mystery, for it can be reviwed by anyone to be placed back into ayuda's statement and then they can make their own conclusion about [misrepresentaion] when the omited part is replaced.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:201678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/213498.html