I offered it as a good enough short summary of your position for the purposes of the point I was raising.
A summary, by definition, has to mean the same thing as what it summarizes. But you admitted that what you presented as my position meant something very different than what my position actually was, in
Message 233:
Crash writes:
Now, remember "experience working as a photographer" is your statement of my position on CS's position...so you intended "experience working as a photographer" to be a synonym for my phrase "experience that helps you get a job." Otherwise, you were misrepresenting me, right?
Mod writes:
It was a rough summary of it yes...No, I did not mean them to be synonymous.
So you admit that you summarized my position with language that did not mean the same thing as my position.
I don't know how it gets any clearer, Mod. Why do you believe that it's OK to present, as someone's position, something different than what their position actually is? (Your response should not ignore this question.)
And since I gave the brief summary of your position, and you didn't correct me straight away, I assumed you had understood me well enough and you agree that my portrayal of it was near enough to not bother arguing it.
But I did correct you right away. I told you what "professional" meant (via a rhetorical question.) Your response was to play dumb and wonder why I was "asking a question" when in fact I was making a statement. I'm sure you'd now like to pretend that never happened, but you don't get to, because that would be a misrepresentation.
I'm afraid you have not shown that my actions were done dishonestly.
Sure I have. I've done so according to your own standard:
quote:
Remember, to be supporting documentation it has to show that I was aware of the truth, but presented it deliberately falsely.
So, I've shown that. You admitted that you were aware of my position, and intentionally presented as my position something that was not my position.
Now, you'll lie and say that you never admitted it, that I'm "misrepresenting" your meaning, but that's a predictable dodge. It's the lie you use to defend your other lies.
I'm quite content facing you honestly.
Then I invite you to do so. Start with your reply to this message.
If you think my rank dishonesty is interfering with discussion, report it to a moderator.
You
are a moderator. Why should I expect them to agree with me? You know as well as I do that the moderators here have only ever protected their own. You know it because
you were there when it happened.
Message 180
You accuse me/CS of dishonesty:
Ok, you've completely ignored the evidence I actually
did present, to seize on something else. Message 180 refers to you misrepresenting CS's argument and shows, by contrasting CS's arguments with your "summaries" of them, that you did so.
Message 188
I see no particular accusations of dishonesty here, and no supporting evidence.
Well, that's a lie. You're ignoring this evidence:
quote:
Message 74 - I try to correct your misunderstanding. (06-13-2012)
No, this is a misrepresentation. Message 74 is just you arguing with my point. You make no claim whatsoever that I've misunderstood CS's example. Your message 74 is just a defense of it. My reply to that message is a rebuttal of your defense and to correct your misunderstanding of one of my points.
CS brings forward the photography example again to rebut your claim at addressing arguments head on. And says you spun his argument.
Yes, but by "spin" he merely means that I didn't not accept it at face value:
quote:
Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee).
See? CS isn't claiming I misunderstood him, he's not even claiming that I misrepresented him. He's complaining that I didn't accept his counterexample without question. That's what he means by "spin." As I make clear in Message 106 and Message 127, which were not rebutted, that's a legitimate tactic in debate. I get to attack counterexamples raised against my position. If I say that there has never been a female President of the United States, and you say "what about Abraham Lincoln", I get to defend my position by pointing out that, in fact, Abraham Lincoln was not a woman. I'm not under any obligation to just accept that mistaken example as "something that challenges my position," because it didn't.
And what was CS's response to these devastating arguments against his position that I spin things? Message 132:
quote:
You misinterpreted my position. Its clear that the audience can see it and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to admit it.
See the flounce? That's how I know this is a dodge - it's a simultaneous attempt to declare victory while cutting and running. Nothing about this is a good-faith attempt to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen, despite your efforts to misrepresent the context.
See? It's an example of how you've utterly misrepresented the exchange to claim that CS was "correcting a misunderstanding" when all he was doing was complaining that I didn't immediately become convinced by him. This evidence was presented and you ignored it; you simply repeated your erroneous claim that CS was trying to "correct my misunderstanding."
Message 197
Again, I see nothing here that's relevant.
Only because you didn't read it:
quote:
He was clearly referring to your attempt at addressing the photographer assistant argument.
Yes, I know that he was. But he didn't say that I'd misunderstood it, he complained that I didn't take it at face value:
quote:
Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee).
There's nothing in here about any "misunderstanding". This is CS simply complaining that when he presents a counterexample, I defend my argument by showing how his counterexample is invalid.
Does this exchange not occur in your version of my post? How is this not evidence that you're misrepresenting CS's position?
Message 209
Once again, you're editing the discussion to misrepresent what my replies are replies to. As so:
[quote]
quote:
By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange
quote:
you're misrepresenting my argument
But the latter was not given as a reply to the former. The actual exchange is thus:
By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange. They ask for value for value.[/qs]
Well, wait, that's not my argument. Remember? You already agreed with me that you can follow around a photographer for free, without fetching coffee or hauling gear. You've already conceded to my point that carrying the stuff and fetching the coffee isn't a necessary condition. That was your Message 196 where you conceded that.
Now you're misrepresenting my argument and ignoring the fact that you've already conceded this point. Do you see, now, why I have no choice but to accuse you of dishonesty?[/qs]
You're misrepresenting which misrepresentation you're being accused of. The part where you misrepresented my argument is when you argued that my argument is that a photographer shouldn't let someone follow them around for free. My argument,
which you agreed with, was that you can follow around a photographer for free.
Then you started asking me whether photographers should be paid as teachers, and I agreed that since
nobody should work for someone else for free, they should be paid, yes. But we weren't talking about teachers when you misrepresented my argument.
I did not misrepresent your argument as by the end of yet another protracted discussion you agree with what I said.
But you've taken my remarks and yours out of context, and rearranged them so that it appears we're having a different discussion than we actually did. This is misleading editing - another of your lies.
You want me to say anything about the other messages?
Mod, you can address them or not. It's entirely up to you. But you can't ignore them and then claim that evidence was not presented, because it has been. Your efforts to argue otherwise are misleading in the extreme, as I've shown. You've radically misrepresented the history of our exchange on this subject, and no amount of asking nicely seems to convince you to stop.
Did I really need to quote you quoting it?
No, of course not. You just need to stop saying that I didn't quote you saying what you said you didn't say.
Furthermore you 'dishonestly omit' the part where I explained what I actually said, which stands in contrast to what you said I said:
I didn't
say you said anything. I
quoted you saying it. That's what
evidence of your dishonesty looks like. It's when you say you didn't say something, and then I show you saying that exact thing.
You said something like 'the context was about experience that can help you a get a job'
Right, because you had previously stated that CS
wasn't talking about experience working as a photographer:
You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.
And I reminded that he was, in fact, talking about that. And then
you said:
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
Now, since we were in a disagreement about what CS was talking about, I took this as a rebuttal. Now you seem to be claiming that it was actually an agreement.
Well, ok. It's possible that I misunderstood. But it's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that can occur when you
change your position 180 degrees and try to act like you didn't. Remember, you said "You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience." I don't understand why it's so unreasonable to read that and think that you were trying to say that CS "was talking about a different experience" than experience working as a photographer.
That simply never happened crash.
Lie. See above, where I quote your remarks to that effect twice.
You could have avoided this error if you were using the rhetorical methodology known as the Principle of Charity
The Principle of Charity doesn't mean that when you first say that the sky is red, and then later say that the sky is blue without making any effort to explain the shift in your position, that I'm required to go back and believe that when you said "red" you actually meant "blue." And you can't use your subsequent statements that the sky is blue to argue that you never said, originally, that the sky was red. You said (quoted for the third time):
You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.
You said that, and you continue to misrepresent my remarks as though they were in reply to a different post.
That's the critical misrepresentation. You continue to pretend that you never said (for the fourth time):
You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.
But you did say that.
I only said one thing about 'the kind of experience that would help you get a job' regarding CS's position and that was to say IT WAS.
But that's a lie. You took
two opposite positions on it and are trying to pretend that you didn't, by presenting my replies to the first position as replies to the second, to make it look like I'm arguing against a position you never took. But you
did take it. I've now quoted you doing so five times in this post alone, and several times in the posts previous.
Do you remember how awkward you was being in trying to explain it when I asked you quite nicely?
You weren't "asking nicely," you were playing dumb. I chose not to play along - I don't need the practice. (That's a small joke.)
If you had just quoted the salient parts you felt were in contradiction
But I
did quote the parts that were in contradiction! Multiple times, even. To say that I did not is a lie.
What you changed was my stated position, which you proceeded to argue against causing confusion.
Uh, what? How did I "change" your position? You're the one who holds your positions, there's nothing I can do to change them except present arguments that either convince you to change or don't. There's nothing I can "change" except by dishonestly presenting words you didn't write as your own - which you've admitted to doing to me - and you now agree that, contrary to what you accused me of, I've not done that.
On the other hand, while you continue to say I am dishonest in a public forum, I'm going to continue to challenge you.
Feel free to. But stop doing it by misrepresenting the context of our discussion, misrepresenting which remarks are in reply to which others, and lying about the context of my posts.
™ Version 4.2
