On 07/06/2014 15:08, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not sure what your specific _focus_ [my emphasis] is here with
these questions. Perhaps you could clarify?
I think you mean 'intention' rather than 'focus'. I already spelled out the _focus_, which was on whether Kevin _said_ those things attributed to him or not, or whether it was complete journalistic invention. As I said, journalists tend to embellish and varnish, rarely is there complete invention.
Regarding _intention_ I would rather like to get to the truth about whether he said that or not (rather than whether what he was supposed to have said was true). For example, he is supposed to have said "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones". I suppose at the back of my mind was, if he really said that, what on earth was he thinking of, if he knew he was speaking to a journalist? I mean, if you talk to these people you want to be as open as you can, without being deceptive, but always mindful that anything you say may be taken as it is and published in the Daily Mail. So think carefully about what you say. If Kevin did say that, then two things are publishable, (i) that he is mentally dividing, perhaps not very nicely, the Wikipedians who aren't cool or hip, and himself and his 'chill' mates, and (ii) he is rather risibly signifying that he is cool and hip, which is something you should be generally careful of doing, even with mates, and especially with journalists, who are sort of programmed to pick up on these things.
Note I said 'taken as it is' and not 'taken out of context'. People talk about 'remarks taken out of context' but when you look at what they said, it is nearly always that they weren't thinking carefully about what they were saying, and inadvertently gave away thoughts that they would rather have kept inside their heads.
But we don't know whether he actually did say that or not.
Thanks for explaining 'chill'.
, Ed