I don't feel that the later apocalyptic comments to you are related to his comment about the sky burning.
Why don't you feel that? Of course they're related. Why wouldn't they be related? He certainly didn't make it explicit that they were directed only to "media hype" or some such nonsense, so why isn't it a valid interpretation to apply them to the people he was replying to?
That was not one of your complaints. Please don't add.
I'm sorry? The complaint that Holmes accused me of unreasonable "visions of the apocalypse" was certainly a part of message 75. I'm not
adding anything; you're the one who asserted that Holmes had not accused me of apocalyptic visions immediately after quoting Holmes accusing me of apocalyptic visions. I'm simply pointing out that deeply puzzling inconsistency.
Like I've said before your responses are baffling. Are two people writing your posts, or something? I can't make heads or tails of the fact that you deny Holmes saying things immediately adjacent to quotes of him directly saying those things. Can you provide an explanation for your behavior?
I did not see that Holmes had pegged your stance as apocalyptic and therefore I don't see that the "sky burning" comment implied that you or anyone else in the thread had said that "the sky was burning".
Well, ok, you didn't see it then. I can accept that. As I said there's a considerable degree of context to sort through. Now that you've quoted him pegging my stance in exactly that manner, do you see it now?
No I'm not saying that Holmes was talking about sources saying the sky was burning. I read it as a reference to media hype.
What media, specifically? Which media, who said that the sky was burning, was quoted by RAZD or by any other participant in that discussion? If none, what media source did Holmes imply he was talking about, specifically, and what citation did he provide to substantiate that allegation?
Exactly what constitutes a misrepresentation to you? I'm operating under the idea that any time a person directly states, implies, or even responds to an argument as though their opponent made statements that they did not make, that's a misrepresentation. What exactly does it mean
to you? The same thing, or something different?
IMO, he is just saying that hype isn't going to solve the problem.
What's the possible relevance of that remark, though, unless he's implying that his opponents are hyping the issue? I mean, am I just supposed to interpret every remark by Holmes as a non sequiter, completely absent of any context? Why would I interpret statements by Holmes, in a reply to me or another person, not as remarks about
my statements or the statements of that person, but as completely unrelated, tangental, non sequiters on the subject of media hype, which hitherto had not been the subject of discussion?
I see no reason to change my conclusions. I still see no violations worth action.
Maybe instead of cryptic accusations and just-so stories, you can answer a few questions in conclusion.
Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally, directly state that his opponent or their sources said something they did not say?
Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally, imply that his opponent or their sources said something they did not say?
Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally,
respond as though an opponent or their sources said something they did not say?
If you conclude, as I do, that the answer to any or all of those questions is "yes", then the issue of whether or not they're offenses or just mistakes hinges on Holmes' intent. And how would we judge his intent? His protestations that they were mistakes are hardly indicative; someone who had been doing it on purpose would say the same thing.
Wouldn't the fact that he does it
over and over and over again, even after having it pointed out, imply that these aren't mistakes but conscious efforts to distort? Doesn't the fact that many of his opponents recognize these as conscious efforts to distort imply that they very well might be? How else might we determine his intent in these "miscommunications"? I don't see that his denials tell us much, and I don't see how tortuous reinterpretation of remarks out of context, as you've been doing, constitute some kind of defense.
™ Version 4.2
