Re: Crowley posts again

J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Sat, 25 Nov 95 16:23:00 -0500

PC> All this stuff about who said what and when must be very tedious
PC> to non-participants. But actually it's a nice case-study of state
PC> of the science.

Anything to get off the subject how your out of context quoting,
eh Paul?

PC> a) Phil attacks Elaine - outlining a fairly standard "savannah" theory

Except that Phil didn't "attack" anyone -- he simply explained an
idea regarding the rise of bipedalism in hominids.

PC> b) Jim quotes Phil

Yes.

PC> c) Paul quotes Jim quoting Phil

That should be "Paul leaves out context of quotes in order to make
erroneous claim about what was said".

PC> d) Alex flames Paul - for demonstrating ignorance

That should be "Alex makes mistake of thinking that Paul
accurately quoted Jim and Phil".

PC> e) Paul refers Alex to Jim's original
PC> f) Alex, Jim and Phil flame Paul for ignorance (again) and for
PC> quoting out of context

Apparently you consider it a flame when someone points out that
your statements do not match facts; that would not be a generally
held definition.

PC> g) Phil posts his original original - showing that there was no
PC> quoting out of context, and the "ignorance" was all in the
PC> original original.
PC> Paul.

And thus Paul ends his attempt at spin-doctoring. Paul, you left out
the context of Phil's remarks so you could claim they were saying
something they clearly weren't. Face up to it, Paul -- you got caught.

Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)

* Q-Blue 2.0 *