|
Here, again, Peter Staudenmaier takes the
reasonable position, even if it is logically inconsisitent
with his other positions.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306002331.66763.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:34:12 -0500
Peter Staudenmaier:
Misleading quotation is wrong regardless of how much you quote
-- paragraphs, pages, or single words -- and regardless of
whether "opposing viewpoints" are involved.
Daniel:
I'm glad we agree on this. Now if it were only possible to
put this into practice.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Part of the point of quotation is to focus on the parts you
wish to discuss. That requires selecting the appropriate passages.
This sort of selection is only problematic when it mangles
the selected parts. It is not problematic when it merely skips
over other parts that you're not addressing.
Daniel:
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Now may I point out that
you frequently fall short of your own standards?
Daniel wrote:
"How is the reader to separate your polemical from your
historical writing (especially if you employ both techniques
in one piece)."
Peter Staudenmaier:
These two things very often coincide. I recommend a look at
Richard Wolin's work for a fine example.
Daniel:
So you don't write history, you write polemic with some history
mixed in?
Daniel Hindes
The thread continues
|
