Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

Every time there's a pro-Kerry post to this list, I cringe in 
anticipation of the loaded language and elided facts.  Same with 
pro-Bush posts.  Or any politically themed posts to this list.

On Oct 6, 2004, at 12:34 PM, matusiak wrote:

> The reason I responded, and the point that I'm trying to drive home, 
> is that using loaded language to get your point across often does more 
> to call your opinion into question than to support your ideas.  This 
> is a problem on a national (if not global scale), both with our 
> elected officials and with the constituents.

And, needless to add, people on INW.

> If the goal is spreading misinformation, then use whatever lingo you 
> desire.  If the goal is to legitimately discuss topics and attempt to 
> solve problems, then language and intentions must be made painfully 
> clear for all to see.  We all know it can be just as misleading to 
> leave out important facts as it can be to completely fabricate 
> information.  In this case, we don't even know that Soros owns this 
> domain or pretty much anything about it.  The inference that he owns 
> it (or scooped it up quickly based upon Cheney's blunder) and then 
> made the point to redirect those web requests to his own site is both 
> quite loaded, as well as lacking some significant details.

Isn't misinformation and loaded language pretty much what political 
discussions on this list are all about?

> That's about all I have to say on that topic.  I hope it was clear.

It's clear that you didn't agree with Tony.  And it was clear that Tony 
had taken the hypothesis that Soros was behind the domain and run with 
it.

But otherwise, no.  I think we need a thread on linguistics and 
semantics.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher