Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2003, at 13:04:13
In reply to Misrepresentation » Lou Pilder, posted by Jonathan on March 25, 2003, at 0:14:08
Jonathan,
You wrote that ayuda wrote,[...I believe 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 question before us in your post is that you write that my paraphrasing of this statement by ayuda by leaving out the part enclosed by {...} cause you to associate me with [misrepresentation]. It is my understanding , by what I have been told by a communication expert that I have had review this post of yours, that your use of the word,[misrepresentation] in association with my name is distorted, misleading and innacurate.
First, the word [misrepresentation], in and of itself, has the potential to imply that there is deliberate intent to cause others to believe something that is false. This can happen if different words are used in a paraphrase, but in the case in question, only the same words were used and no words were added or substituted.
Secondly, in my paraphrase, the 3 dots indicate that there was an omission. But there could be many reasons for one to use the 3 dots, not just the reason that you wrote.
Third, the issue of whether the part left out would constitute a [material] difference in the meaning of the whole statement by ayuda in the opinion of my expert, is not relevant because the 3 dots indicate that there is something left out so that it is not a mystery to any reader. If the 3 dots were not there, then it would be possible to claim that misrepresentation was sought. But my expert said to me that {I did the proper thing} by putting the 3 dots in the paraphrease and if someone does not understand the convention of such, then I am not responsible for their lack of understanding, anymore than you would be responsible for someone's lack of understanding about the use of quotation marks, for they could request others to help them understand what they do not know, not requirer you, let's say, to not use quotation marks because they do not understand their use.
Fourthly, when my expert examined the issue of the part that is left out, the conclusion was that the meaning was {not} [materially] changed, as your post is writing about. We could take both the paraphased and the whole statement and see.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:201678
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/213466.html