| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
   |
Posted - 2011.03.09 01:48:00 -
[1]
You've lost my vote Trebor...
I came here expecting a 'Complete guide to MUD' and all you gave was some boring political ****. ;/
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.03.09 08:52:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Courthouse
If I had selectively quoted his posts or paraphrased, as you have, you would be right. Rather, I presented his posts in complete context.
For some definitions of 'complete'.
E.g. a link to a post and your interpretation of what it say does not equal to 'complete context', especially when that interpretation completely misses aspects such as context, irony and brainstorming.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.03.09 12:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Courthouse
Is English your second language? I have to ask because your argument would make sense then, as English does tend to have rather bad adjectives for specificity.
Nope, English is actually my third language... And on topic; my fifth language, Japanese, has taught me quite a lot about the subject of 'context'.
Originally by: Courthouse
Complete context in this instance refers to the presentation of Trebor's posts in their original form, with all preceding and following posts visible. I could have made screenshots of just his singular posts and referenced those, but not having the thread available would have been editorializing his context. I did not do that.
First of all, linking to a thread does not infuse your interpretation of his post with context, let alone 'complete'. Your interpretation of his posts are necessarily the product of the context of _YOUR_ views, as those are what read, interpreted and produced the statements about Trebor's views. They are your views of his views, not his.
Why is this important? Well, because when _I_ read his posts my interpretation was wildly different from yours. That is because complete context is not just a thread full of text... It is also you.
So you could not possibly have the complete context by just posting a hyperlink.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 01:32:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 10/03/2011 01:33:30
Originally by: Courthouse
You're incorrect because you're arguing that context is the same as interpretation. It is not.
I am arguing that you cannot provide 'complete context' despite linking the thread since your interpretation necessarily modifies the context.
Originally by: Courthouse
Context would refer to his words that were posted within the scope of the thread being discussed as the preferring comments and/or discussion would have prompted that particular reply.
Unless provided by the author there is no reasonable or rational expectation that a reader of a written piece will understand the personal interpretations of wither the author or other readers. This is the absolute philosophical core of the study of literature in historical context.
It is, however, not the complete context. If you wish to define complete context to only cover the text, well that's your prerogative however not everyone shares that same view. I don't know what kind of soft philosophical classes you were exposed to while studying law (hi mittens-alt), however on my side completeness is a term used carefully.
I'd go so far as to say that the complete context is not possible to recreate, not even for the author when he later rereads his own text.
Oh, and vote Trebor!
|
| |
|