[Note to moderator, if any: I don't know what the dickens is going on with my registration. If this passes your way for approval because of some claim that I'm not registered, please contact me. My attempt to contact you has failed.]
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:00:30 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Taking writings out of context, and trying to direct the reader into an interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.
Unless the original author was in fact asserting things as fact that are questioned by oneself and other persons not certifiably loony, in which case presenting an interpretation that questions that of hte author is or can be a highly desirable editing out of POV. (I'm not defending things taken improperly out of context (Duh).)
Perhaps we should not _assume_ that all these articles are good NPOV work? Perhaps we should not assume that they are not? Perhaps this is pretty elementary stuff about NPOV to be spendint the time of this list on?