The ellison is irrelevant. The problem was the truncation of the first part of the sentence. He essentially attributed an assertion to me that was made by someone else.
See the difference.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the thread.
I agree that this:
Arnold Winkelried said:
“Ellis Dee says that people saw a flying saucer over London”
is not the same as
Arnold Winkelried said:
“People saw a flying saucer over London”
In the second quote, it makes it sound like I am confirming the reports of people saying they saw flying saucers. In the first quote, I am saying that Ellis Dee is reporting something, and I may or may not believe what Ellis Dee is saying.
Try something comparable:
Same difference. The allegation exists, regardless of the source (which is entirely irrelevant to its actual existence).
That’s not the same thing at all. That doesn’t even make sense. How can “evolution is a myth” be an allegaton? An allegation that somebody said X is not an allegation of X. That’s ridiculous.
More importantly, I did NOT say that anyone had made private allegations about Favre. That was not my claim, and it was dishonest to abridge my quote to give the impression that it was.
I do see the difference, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your objection. I think the point about ED’s usage remains, though. By the very nature of what an allegation is, ED was saying, the agency is irrelevant, because by saying that somebody said an allegation was made, you were acknowledging an allegation whether you liked it or not. He wanted to point this out by showing you what you were ultimately saying.
Obviously you disagree that you were ultimately saying that. But to say that your disagreement with his argument makes his argument a bad-faith one is unfair, and certainly not something that should bear a moderator imprimatur, in my opinion. The argument is the same now as it was in the other thread, only now it’s somehow become one of board policy, which just doesn’t make any sense. ED didn’t lie about what you were saying; he disagreed about its significance.
Upon edit:
[QUOTE=Diogenes]
An allegation that somebody said X is not an allegation of X.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not an allegation of X, but it makes it necessarily true that an allegation of X exists. Either the original one was made, or it was invented by the second person. Either way it’s there.
Both of the cuts altered the meaning.
Removing the first clause has already been explained.
Removing the ‘else’ is more subtle, but still changes it.
The ‘else’ further removes weight - not only is Dio not saying it happened (just reporting that someone said someone else said something happened), but the organization he was quoting isn’t saying it - someone ELSE, not part of that organization, said something.
So… it was alleged, right? By somebody? This very quickly becomes an absurd conversation, but that’s a result of the particular position Diogenes decided to stake out, not of ED’s casuistry playing fast and loose with quotations.
Only if you believe Deadspin. right? If Deadspin was making the allegation himself, then I would say “it was alleged by somebody”. But if Deadspin says “I read a report that someone made allegations”, if I were a nit-picker, I would want to verify Deadspin’s assertion.
Tengu, just curious if you’ve read the whole thread (or at least start where Dio shows up). The argument was that Dio was claiming there are zero allegations. Period. Not from one particular person or organization, but ANYONE.
It’s clearly become a(nother) case of Dio fearing that ceding ground on one minor semantic point will unravel his whole point, and digging in with all his might and derailing everything around him.
We don’t know. Just because a tabloid reports something doesn’t mean it’s true, and claiming that someone else said something is not the equivalent of saying it yourself, nor is it proof that the someone else actually said it.
If I say “I’ve heard” that you make positions up and defend them just for kicks, even though I’ve never heard anything of the kind – I’ve invented it out of whole cloth – can I plausibly say that I never advanced an argument that you do that?
Can I say that, in fact, I never suggested you did anything wrong at all and thus never personally did anything to you, and have you accept that from me?
Yes, I have - though I admit I hadn’t when I made my first post, so while my point that the edits change the meaning substantially stand, the specific change in meaning caused by ED’s alteration of the quote, and thus my point about the apparent weight that Dio is giving the alleged allegations is something of a non sequitur in the context.
But, anyway, that admission to one side…
Deadspin claimed that someone claimed that Favre did something untoward.
Nobody has come forward and said that Favre has done something untoward. (At least if the information in that thread is correct.)
Dio, thus, is (again, with the above caveat) completely correct in his claim. I’m one of the last people who will defend Dio, but in this case he’s correct. Allegations of allegations from (so far as I can tell) nameless third parties are not allegations.
Frankly, a hair splitting point, but since ED didn’t decide to argue against Dio’s hair splitting, but the accuracy of his claim…
What can’t be concluded is that I’ve actually done that, just like the Deadspin article can’;t be used to prove that Sterger made any allegations against Brett Favre. That Deadspin says made these claims is not in question, but that is not equivalent to concluding that she actually made allegations.
Do you get it now ?
I guess I just fail to see why an allegation [of something from something] isn’t an allegation.
Because an allegation of X is not X, even if X is another allegation. The allegation that Sterger made a claim is a separate allegation from what Sterger herself is being alleged to have claimed.
No one is claiming it isn’t. But an allegation of anything is still an allegation. It could be completely and absolutely without merit, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an allegation.
And NO ONE has argued against that - merely that the number of allegations out there is not zero.
But the allegation is only alleged to have been made. The Deadspin allegation is that Sterger said something, but that doesn’t mean that Deadspin itself is saying it. “A said that B said C” is not equivalent to “A said C,” and is not even a proof that B said C.
The allegations are only alleged.
That, in itself, is an allegation.
Things that are alleged are called allegations. That is the (only) point being made. Everything beyond that is your paranoia to losing an incredibly minor point in a much larger discussion.
The root of this issue is that Ellis Dee did not believe he was substantively changing the intent or meaning of Diogenes the Cynic’s post, that he was merely applying “normal editing rules”,
The problem is that the editing done was based on the point that was in debate itself - the meaning of allegation and the nature of a allegation of an allegation (of an allegation?).
Ellis, in this situation, I think it would have been more appropriate to do like Dallas Jones has suggested: retain the whole sentence, but then bold the parts you wish to emphasize, and annotate the bolding was added for emphasis.
I have seen at least one similar situation where someone applied the “normal editorial rules” to convey what they understood the statement to be, but the person quoted felt it changed their meaning. This is why the mods tend to take a strict interpretation of the quoting and use of editing/ellipsis. The change of wording may not seem like a meaning change to one party, and yet the to the other party it is a significant difference.
I think in situations like this it is best to err on the side of caution, to preclude inadvertently changing the meaning of someone else’s words.
And can I ask, what the hell are all these alligators doing anyway? Can we get rid of the alligators? 