To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040303044934.17920.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com> <007d01c4016f$5b0ef100$5cbd9f3f@y3gnu>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism - Selective quotation
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:33:03 -0500

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"Selective quotation is only a bad idea when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full argument."

Daniel replied:
Now that is an interesting position. Essentially, you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement to catch you at it. While this absolves you of any requirements to be fair or accurate, I have to point out that the logic of this justification will not fly among historians. In history, quoting sources out of context in a way that alters the original meaning is a cardinal sin and something than no historian can do and hope to be taken seriously. Completely independent of the question of the ethics of such a stance, I would suggest that as a habit it is dangerous. If this is consistent in your writing here, are you really sure you can successfully switch modes and go for strict accuracy when writing formally for publication?

If you are known to employ this technique here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your other writings. You may respond that you write polemic, not history. If you'd do take that stance, then you are essentially telling all your readers that they cannot actually trust anything the you write, for at any point your examples may not actually support your argument as they may appear to, and the summaries and explanations that you give may intentionally not accurately represent the things are describing at all. Of course, all your sources are theoretically public, and anyone could go out and acquirer four-foot stack of books and spend a month or two checking you (provided, of course, they read German). But certainly you don't expect to a majority of your readers to do this, so essentially you have put us on noticed not trust anything you say. Perhaps you might consider being upfront about this in your articles, and lead off with a disclaimer of some sort.

To which Peter Staudenmaier first snipped out this portion:

"Now that is an interesting position. Essentially, you state that you are justified in selectively quoting statements of others, even if this then alters the original meaning, because theoretically anyone can go back and look at the original statement to catch you at it."
Then Peter said:
No. Altering the original meaning is not what quotation is for. It's not okay to alter the original meaning no matter how much or how little you quote. One of the functions of quotation is to summarize the original meaning. That is, in part, what quotation is for. In this sense, all quotation is necessarily 'selective'. If you think I have altered the meaning of any of the passages I have quoted, please point them out.

Daniel replies:

Ok. So first you agree that the purpose of selective quotation is not to alter the original meaning. On the other hand, you say, "all quotation is necessarily 'selective'.". This means that altering the original meaning is actually inevitable. So if every instance of selective quotation necessarily alters the original meaning, we should be discussing how much the alteration alters the original, and not whether. In my own writing, I try to avoid the charges altogether by erring on the side of length rather than shortness, and quoting in entireity, or at least in whole paragraphs. In some of your attack pieces, you have quoted as short as individual words, which I would argue has something like a 99.9% chance of altering the original meaning significantly, especially in polemical writing. I will take you up on your offer, and try to point out your alterations whenever time permits. I should also point out that I am not the only one capable of determining when a selective quotation alters the meaning of the original, and I have heard dozens of complaints about your quotations from others on this list.

Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:

"If you are known to employ this technique here, we may quite rightly suspect that you employ it in your other writings."

Then Peter further said:

That is foolish. Quite apart from the fact that this is not the technique I employ, we are talking about an email list with a very easily accessible public archive. It is a waste of bandwidth to quote every bit of every post you respond to. The proper procedure is to quote the specific part you're replying to.

Daniel responds:

The reply avoids fact that I was talking about your articles as well as your emails, Peter. In writing about Steiner you also snip out just those parts you are talking about as well. The accusation I am making is that your method in doing this distorts the original to a degree that is more than normal discourse would allow. I have duly noted your denial that you ever distort the views of others you quote.

Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:

"You may respond that you write polemic, not history."
Then Peter further said:
No, I write both.

Daniel responds:
In one article? I question how we are supposed to separate your historical writing from your polemic. Earlier I suggested you include some sort of disclaimer in your polemical writing so we know when to take you seriously. Otherwise I fear we will have to assume you are always writing polemic, and not history.

Peter Staudenmaier next snipped:

"Of course, all your sources are theoretically public"
Then Peter further said:
You are very much missing the point. On an email list like this one, every post you reply to is not just "theoretically" public, it is actually public, with no need to buy any books or visit any libraries. All you need is a click of the mouse. Anybody reading this post has already read the previous posts in the thread. If you think this is an unreasonable approach to email discussion, could you perhaps explain why?

Daniel responds:
Chalk that up as a distortion. I was talking about both your e-mails and your articles, and not jsut your e-mails as you reply would suggest. By shortening my original quote, it is not clear what I was actually writing about. This is exactly what I am suggesting you could avoid by longer quotation. Everything you say is true about an e-mail list. But it does not help the readers of your articles, whether they read them on the web or in a magazine, and that was the entire point of my original paragraph.

Daniel Hindes

The thread continues.