Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2020 7:57:00 GMT -5
While it's comforting to know you're in such a beneficent mood Michael, my post has very little to do with your above grievance. I'm simply telling you, and you can take this as for your own good if you wish, "about seven o'clock" does not mean "at seven o'clock." This is all about being accurate and not massaging factual information to effect a personal conclusion. When you put such personal interpretations into print, I'm sure you realize not everyone will have read Elsie Whateley's original statement, as an example. For years, you've been laying into others when their statements and conclusions do not agree with source documentation. You've called that behaviour "reckless" or you continuously accuse them of "shrugging things off." In your books, you state things like "a person would have to be crazy to believe.." or "I don't think any reasonable person would disagree.." I'm sure there are dozens of other examples, and I think it's quite apparent you have a very sizeable interest and investment in what others think in this case, or you wouldn't keep telling people they must always decide for themselves, while saying something else at the same time. Gee, well I started to wonder whether or not I was crazy so I opened V2, turned to page 3, and double checked what I quoted. I expected to find a huge mistake based upon your most recent post. But no, there it is in black & white. So what part of an exact quote do you or anyone else who can read have a problem with? Where I state an opinion its quite obvious that's what it is. And I do believe I have limited them compared to most authors. But here again, you seem to be having a problem with what you believe I happen to think, and this approach seems to be your only recourse to upset it. You and anyone else are free to disagree, and I've given the actual quote so that could happen. One can clearly see where I am drawing what I happen to believe. I don't know, perhaps "about 7 P.M." means 7:30, 7:45, or 8 PM to you, but where I'm from, and based on the 20 years of reading similar documentation, it means about 7 PM.. At the risk of offending you, that means the target time is 7 PM and could be 6:55 or 7:05. But when one starts to venture beyond that were looking at "about 7:15" or "about 6:45." Also, I've seen the type where one might say around "7:00 to 7:15." What would that mean to you I wonder? 10:00 PM? So again, one can absolutely see what was said, what my position is, and why I hold it. Neither nefarious nor misleading. Decide for yourself Joe, and as you can see, I've given you and any reader the best opportunity to do it. Carry on my friend. No worries Michael, the next time I come across one of the frequent examples in which you've morphed Elsie's "about seven o'clock" into "at seven o'clock," I'll be sure to point it out. I'm sure I'd be able to go right to at least a couple of them, but for that pesky lack of an index.. BTW, another suggestion might be to expand your Table of Contents to include the numerous sub-headings that appear within each chapter. While not a full index, my guess is that would help out readers a whole lot in referencing and cross-referencing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2020 11:30:38 GMT -5
No worries Michael, the next time I come across one of the frequent examples in which you've morphed Elsie's "about seven o'clock" into "at seven o'clock," I'll be sure to point it out. I'm sure I'd be able to go right to at least a couple of them, but for that pesky lack of an index.. BTW, another suggestion might be to expand your Table of Contents to include the numerous sub-headings that appear within each chapter. While not a full index, my guess is that would help out readers a whole lot in referencing and cross-referencing. I get the index issue. I do. However, each section isn't always written to be independent so using an index to skip around defeats the purpose. I also consider that I've created indexes for other books and that's helped me learn more over the years (e.g. "Wilson's Summary," Whipple, Waller, Haldeman-Julius, Vitray, and B&R) so its for this reason that I've suggested one might do that (or take notes) when reading mine. Your other suggestion is one that I considered but there are just too many for it to work. The reason I've put them in there in the first place is to highlight certain sections but to also create a place for a mental bookmark.
|
|