Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Rowling discussion!

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you look up the definition of straw man . NO ONE has suggested anything like this about
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
      > If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
      > of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
      > same morning, well then, they know it now.
      I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
      look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
      like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet. You
      might find things less _absurdam_ if you didn't employ such straw-man
      _reductio_.

      I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
      that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
      alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here. The fact
      is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
      major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
      which happened to be USA Today. YOU now prefer to act as though that
      is the only one Pat mentioned.
      > It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
      > gossip columns were expected of members
      Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
      absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
      either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

      Condescend much?
    • David Bratman
      ... Actually, I think someone did. See below. ... No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp the difference between [see my
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:38 AM 6/30/2006 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

        >On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
        >> If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
        >> of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
        >> same morning, well then, they know it now.
        >I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
        >look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
        >like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet.

        Actually, I think someone did. See below.

        >I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
        >that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
        >alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here.

        No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp
        the difference between [see my quote above] "not automatically known" and
        "automatically not known," the latter of which being what I'd have to have
        written for his argument to have any validity. But I didn't. Some linguist.

        We also have, perhaps with better excuse, his failing to remember that in
        an earlier post I drew the precise distinction he's insisting on here. I
        wrote: "it wasn't in big flashing headlines, so it was easily missed. This
        was not exactly a news story on the level of, say, September 11th." You
        couldn't read a newspaper the next day and fail to notice that one. You
        could read one and fail to notice J.K. Rowling. There's a difference.

        Also: if I understand the timing correctly, Pat posted on the same day that
        he read the Rowling news. I'm not sure how early on that day, but by
        comparison there were actually people in the world, not out in a desert or
        on top of a mountain, who didn't hear about the September 11th attacks
        until much later in the day. They might even have first heard about the
        attacks by reading someone's e-mail. I heard about them in a telephone
        call, not from a media news source at all. Only after the call, and
        because of it, did I turn on the radio.


        >The fact
        >is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
        >major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
        >which happened to be USA Today.

        Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall Pat
        saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about the Rowling
        thing.

        If he conducted that Google search of his before sending his first post on
        the subject to the list, then I apologize. But I got the impression, when
        he wrote of his search, that he had conducted it _after_ the complaint was
        made, and did so for the purpose of defending his claim that the news was
        wide-spread.

        If these suppositions are correct, then it was the appearance of the news
        in USA Today, and not the results of the Google search, that led Pat to
        assume the news would be no spoiler. That is why I referred to USA Today.

        In any case, if you see a news item on USA Today, you don't need a Google
        search to reasonably conclude that it will be widespread elsewhere. All
        the Google search provided was concrete evidence of that conclusion. It is
        not wrong to make that conclusion, Google search or no Google search. But
        that still makes it no less incorrect to conclude that everybody in your
        readership will therefore have heard the news in the same day. That is the
        point, and the whole point.


        >> It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
        >> gossip columns were expected of members
        >Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
        >absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
        >either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

        Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place where
        _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all. And I am one of
        those who is being told that I should not have missed this story. Which
        requires me to have read the gossip column, since I didn't see the thing on
        any web searching I did that day either.

        Even if you disallow that, the general point is still relevant. The men
        who did not know Ava Gardner or Tito were not the type to be checking daily
        newspapers every morning for the hot feature news items. And this is a
        feature story. It's not September 11th. You seem to have trouble grasping
        the difference.

        DB
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling s spoilers yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today homepage . THREE.
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:44 AM, David Bratman wrote:

          > Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall
          > Pat saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about
          > the Rowling thing.

          "I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling's "spoilers"
          yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today
          homepage".

          THREE. Including AP and Reuters.

          > Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place
          > where _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all.
          > And I am one of those who is being told that I should not have
          > missed this story. Which requires me to have read the gossip
          > column, since I didn't see the thing on any web searching I did
          > that day either.

          So is everyone now required to poll YOU before we decide to comment
          upon a news item or any other piece of information?

          I'd ask YOU to spend some time in front of the mirror today
          reflecting on the fact that you've gone out of your way to publicly
          insult at least three people on this list, at least two of whom count
          you as a friend, all in order to establish that, despite it being
          reported in all the major news outlets, YOU didn't read or hear a
          news item concerning a wildly popular series of books, and that
          therefore it was wrong for Pat to trust his instinct that most people
          HAD already heard the news item, again despite it having appeared in
          at least three major news outlets; all because Pat posted a
          lighthearted comment concerning a POSSIBLE development in a series of
          books that you've already stated you don't care about.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.