[lit-ideas] Re: deleting/culling messages
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:35:44 -0700
John Wager suggests that 'the main reason' for judicious editing of a
post one is replying to is that by picking and chosing exactly the
words ('perhaps a single bad sentence' in it) one can make its writer
'look like an idiot,' and moreover that one can 'completely
mis-represent [the original writer's] position by leaving intact a
parenthetical digression.' This may be true. It's a common tactic in
political rhetoric. I've seldom seen it here though. What I have seen
are many instances of someone's appending comments or endorsements
such as 'I agreee,' 'That is so funny!', 'You the man,' You go, girl!',
to 25kb posts which are reproduced below them. (Well, these
aren't actual examples, but I think the point is clear enough.)
The phrase 'judicious editing,' which appears in the lit-phil
guidelines is reproduced from the old Phil-Lit guidelines, where this
was the common practice and seemed unproblematic. People can, as John
suggests, deliberately misrepresent; but that this is the main reason
for reproducing only those parts of a post to which one is replying
seems dubious. The implication that it is is unfair.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
