|
In this message, Peter Staudenmaier wonders
why responding to four separate threads in one post is in
the least bit problematic. Well, aside from the fact that
he so selectively quotes that it is almost always necessary
to go back and check the original, I really can find no other
reason to object.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040305231555.29294.qmail@web14427.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Morality and Racism
- Selective quotation
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:01:34 -0500
Daniel wrote (to Diana, in a different thread):
"In his last round of responses, he bundled four different
threads into one response, convieniently removing any reference
at all to where I made the original argument."
Peter Staudenmaier:
This is frequently a helpful way to reply to multiple posts
on related themes. Why does it bother you?
Daniel:
Helpful to whom? It certainly helps you obscure the argument,
as it makes tracking a thread difficult for subsequent readers
of the archives. It bothers me in your case particularly because
I have to check you so frequently, going back to see what
I said and what statements I was responding to, in order to
to figure out what you are responding to and how far off track
the discussion has been directed, and this makes that research
all the more difficult.
Daniel Hindes
I continued to give Peter
Staudenmaier a hard time about this.
|
