[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 3/19/03
Time: 1:26:42 AM
Remote Name: 152.163.188.66
claims:
I gave you this challenge: …I hope you noticed how I edited your comments (unnecessarily). If you figure out why I did it and what real information got lost in the translation, a bright light should go off in your head. I know you can do it. I don’t know if you will. That’s the point. If you answer too quickly or underestimate my motives you will get it wrong (that’s a hint). If you want to ignore this bit, that’s okay, too. I just thought that you would find it interesting in the context of what we’ve been discussing and you might want to give it a shot. --Jasper
Prien: “Okay, you cleaned up my typos, and hid from the world my terrible typing skills.”
Jasper: “I warned you that if you answered too quickly you would get it wrong. That’s what you did. You got it wrong.”
Rovaan: “I suspect you used the distraction of cleaning up the spelling errors to divert from having dropped Prien's original point that what Fuhrman had in his book was NOT the "transcript". That sentence was left out and the subsequent discussions ended up to be about the "transcript" as if it really was a transcript. Am I close?”
Rose was dead on. Fixing the typos was A DISTRACTION. You went for it because you didn’t take the time to go back and check MY MESSAGE before you posted your reply.
First, I answered your claimed pourposes when I responded to her. That fact is that your claimed "editing" by deleting a sentence was niot "editing" in the sense yiou used it in your challenge. Had you put my sentence together and deleted that one, that would have been "editing" by deletion. You, however, put comments between my sentences. That's not "editing" but selective citation that is complete as done. The only "editing" done in the selected cites was the typos, and I fully and completely identified all the "informaton" was hidden by that "editing."
You can play all the games you want, but the fact is I correctly identified what you in fact did, and directly responded to your challenge.
You can claim otherwise until the cows fly over the moon, but your claim now is nonsense.
As for your comments about my not looking for your motives, I seldom look for personal motives in the sense you say. I look at the facts, and for inferences about what those facts show about what happened. I leave the search for personal motives to god. I do, however, look for intentions and the goals and purposes that actions are intended to achieve, a very different matter.
Last, the fact you specified in your challenge what had been hidden by your "translation" now entirely demolishes the point you are trying to make. Translation is to change or convert in appearance. That applies to the conversion from the error strewn text to the corrected version, as it converted incorrectly to correctly spelled words. Selected deletions is NOT TRANSLATION.
So bug off with your humbug bull shit about trying to teach me the subtle meaning of words as the basis for deception. I responded to the exact challenge you posed, applying to proper meaning to to the words used. Now you choose to revise it.
And for the record, by your arguments about the transcripts, it's obvious you miss or choose to igore massive doses of that verbal deception that is everywhere in the transcripts.
What you proved is your own petty tendentiousness.
Prien