On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:29:04 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net> wrote:
[...]
>
>SJ>But to be fair to Glenn, my comment above about Glenn "cutting
>>out the text and joined it without ellipses" was in the context of
>>cutting text out of *quotes*, so some may have thought I meant that
>>Glenn cuts text out of *quotes* without ellipses. Such was *not* my
>>intention. I wish to state categorically that I have *no* complaints
>>on this score with Glenn's *quotes*, and I wish to apologise
>>unreservedly for giving the misleading impression that Glenn cuts
>>text out of *quotes* without ellipses.
GM>Thank you.
>
>As to cutting your e-mails, unless one wants to send a 100k email (and I
>don't, I cut and then respond to the relevant portion.
I have no problem with Glenn cutting text out. My problem is with
him not inserting ellipses to show he has done it.
GM>There is no intent
>to distort what you say. It has been done like this on internet since the
>beginning.
>So everyone will know, parts of Stephens message has been cut. If you want
>to see the original go see it.
When text is cut out without ellipses, it *does* distort what I say. It
looks as if I have gone straight from one point to the next, when
really I had other points in between.
I have not noticed it to be a problem with anyone else on the
Reflector.
There is no significant space saving in not inserting ellipses, so I
can think of no good reason why Glenn doesn't do it.
And of course it does not explain why Glenn at least once cut out
my words, changing my meaning in his favour, and replaced the
punctuation and capitalisation, with no ellipses.
[...]
>SJ>BTW Glenn's reference to a "lawyer" is unhelpful.
GM>Libel is unhelpful also!
Agreed. Both "lawyer" and "Libel" were "unhelpful" legal terms for
Glenn to bring to this Reflector!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Was it an accident that Darwin's conclusion meant just what every reader
wanted it to mean? I think not. Darwin used the same ambiguity in his
private letters. Darwinism, therefore, began as a theory that evolution
could be explained by natural selection. It ended as a theory that evolution
could be explained just as you would like it to be explained." (Darlington
C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol. 201, May
1959, p60)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------