On 2011-05-12 18:45, Turk wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-12 16:10, ASW wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-12 12:30, R.E. Byrnes wrote:
Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there

Fixed that for you.

:)

Andrew,

First off, my issue, as set forth in this post, is not what Marlo may or may not have done or said. (Those issues and the facts and opinions regarding the same has been hammered to death in many many prior posts.) Rather, my issue is the manner in which you inserted your opinion into the mix, and, in doing so, how you, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to ascribe attribution for your remarks to Mr. Byrnes.

With all due respect, perhaps a better way for you to have "fixed this" for R.E. Byrnes would have been to have not manipulated his quote in the first place to reflect your editorializing but, instead to have:

1) First provided Mr. Byrnes' quoted remark using the Café's "quote" feature, and,

2) Then just come right out and stated your premise (perhaps with with words to the effect that: "Perhaps, for clarification, a better, and in my opinion, a more accurate perspective of what the issue is, might be 'Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there'".

In that way, the reader would be clear as to what Mr. Byrnes' comments actually were and to now also be able to understand the manner in which you felt his statement did not accurately reflect the facts as you understand them to be.

Your use of the phrase "Fixed that for you" and your use of the emoticon does little to alert a subsequent reader as to what Mr. Byrnes' original quote actually was and in what way you had "fixed it" for him. Quite frankly, upon reading your post, I had naively first attributed good motives to you in that I had (incorrectly) surmised that you had merely corrected a typo, or taken out a duplicate use of a word,…or some other innocuous form of stylistic correction. However, curious as to what you had actually "fixed" for him, I took the time to go back, look up and read his original quote.

Upon reading Mr. Byrnes' actual quote, I was shocked to learn that the two quotes (i.e., yours and his) could not have been more dissimilar in nature and content and that you had, in fact, actually misstated what you had actually done in your post. You had not "fixed it" for Mr. Byrnes. Rather, by you attributing your remarks even tangentially to Mr. Byrnes, you had seriously misrepresented both Mr. Byrnes' actual comment and you had seamlessly interjected your own opinion as his own. In effect, under the attempted guise of humor, you had substituted and interjected your editorial opinion for his...and done so ostensibly under his name.

To modify another person's quoted remarks as you did (particularly by way and use of the Café's "quote" feature), even under the most innocuous of motives would and did cause confusion as to what Mr. Byrnes actually stated and/or believed. As such, I would respectfully suggest that such technique and device by you violates accepted standards of journalism and publication style.

Not cool.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your actual motives in the aforesaid, a person can chalk your comments up to a feeble attempt at humor gone awry. But, that said, still not cool in that a third person could read your post and ascribe comments and opinion to Mr. Byrnes that are clearly not his own. This is the way that misinformation can be disseminated and reputations can be damaged.

Finally, this post does not attempt to address the issue of any perceived pomposity or arrogance that your unsolicited "fixing of things for Mr Brynes" might evoke. Those issues are best left for another day.


The foregoing is all IMHO; the reader's mileage may vary...and probably does.

Best regards,

Mike

On 2011-05-12 18:09, MagicT wrote:
I understand the idea of not flaming the dead, but many have said that Marlo was a thief. I am looking for hard facts as to why this is said. Was it said while he was alive? Was it said directly to him? Did he ever defend his position? If so, how, when, and where?



Thank You,
Trini

On 2011-05-13 05:03, ASW wrote:


Hey, Mike: it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that I had doctored the quote. That's why I wrote "fixed that for you" and inserted a smiley. It amazes me that you went to all that effort over a smart @ss post in a smart @ss thread. I'm sure Mr.Byrnes (whose posts I enjoy) couldn't give a fig.

Actually, let's see you parse the original Byrnes post with as much analytical passion as you did my post. That execrise would be far more interesting than wasting effort on my facetious throw away.

cheers & etc

Andrew

***

On 2011-05-13 16:47, Craig Ousterling wrote:
Turk, didn't you just do the same thing to ASW by changing the PS. Trini line to *** ? ***

***

On 2011-05-13 19:00, MagicT wrote:
I am still interested to know from others why it is said that Marlo stole things. I am interested in the history of this.



Thank You,
Trini

On 2011-05-13 16:25, Turk wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-05-13 05:03, ASW wrote:


Hey, Mike: it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that I had doctored the quote. That's why I wrote "fixed that for you" and inserted a smiley. It amazes me that you went to all that effort over a smart @ss post in a smart @ss thread. I'm sure Mr.Byrnes (whose posts I enjoy) couldn't give a fig.

Actually, let's see you parse the original Byrnes post with as much analytical passion as you did my post. That execrise would be far more interesting than wasting effort on my facetious throw away.

cheers & etc

Andrew

***

"...it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that I had doctored the quote."

Ah!! The old Ad Hominem attack. The last refuge of the person who cannot argue the points on the merits. I'm really disappointed in you for having to stoop to such a low level of argument.

Actually, the very first time I read your post I understood that you had made some kind of change to R.E. Byrnes' post. (Your "fixed it" comment and your smiley were not missed by me.) But, that said, the extent of such quote modification was never clear on its face. What was not known (and what you conveniently left out) was R.E. Byrnes' exact quote. By such omission, a person is unable to appreciate the proffered wit and attack on Marlo that you intended. It was only by taking the time to go back and find Mr. Byrnes' actual quote that a person could and would be able to see specifically how you had "fixed it". And that was the point I was addressing in my prior post.

Had you just stated your opinion as your opinion, I would have had no objection to your posting your strong characterization of Marlo. You will also note that in my original post on this thread, I mentioned that I had no quarrel with you expressing your point of view and had only wished that if you were going to modify a person's quoted remarks, the accepted scholarly and journalistic form is to first quote the actual quote and then post the "altered" quote immediately thereafter. Assuming you to not be lacking in the brain power that you ascribe to me, I'm sorry if those points were lost on you.

In fact, initially, I did read and enjoy your post for its writing style. In a PM to another Café member, I wrote: "Quite frankly, I found Andrew's comment to be very well written and, in fact, from a rhetorical standpoint, I admired the conciseness and clarity of the sentence structure and the points expressed." It was only after I went back and read R.E. Byrnes' actual post, that it now became obvious exactly how you had "fixed" it.

Again, had you posted Mr. Byrnes' exact quote in juxtaposition to your intended satiric comment, not only would the original quote accurately remain but, by the clear juxtaposition of the two statements, there would have been no misunderstanding as to the actual quote, and, your intended irony and satire would have become clear and made powerful by such juxtaposition/i].

My objection was (and is) over the [i]method used by you and not the substance of your comment itself. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of altering another person's quoted remarks without also making clear the full scope and extent of such alteration.

Again, just IMHO. Your mileage may vary...and probably does.

Respectfully,

Mike

P.S. OOPS! I almost forgot your other comment, to wit:

"Actually, let's see you parse the original Byrnes post with as much analytical passion as you did my post. That exercrise would be far more interesting than wasting effort on my facetious throw away."

Respectfully, there is no need to analyze such comment. Mr. Byrnes' comment was clearly stated and, in all regards, was clearly his own. As such, I have no quarrel with either the form or manner of those remarks.

On 2011-05-13 19:45, Turk wrote:

ASW's "quote" about Marlo that it "Has something to do with someone else having shown him something in confidence before he published it, and conventional notions about "ethics" taking over from there" is a serious charge and, if for common decency alone, it would have been nice for Andrew to have laid out the specifics of the charge instead of engaging in what might be charitably characterized as a generalized "drive-by shooting" of a man who is dead and can no longer defend himself.

On 2011-05-13 20:58, MagicT wrote:
Vlad,
I TOO will try to be civil with you. Uhm, I think I AM doing some research by asking questions here on the Magic Café. Funny how you did NOT list this website as a resource. Is it not a resource? Isn't the motto, "Magicians HELPING magicians?" In order to do research, one must have questions. I have questions, and am asking here on this "online resource" for help in hopes of getting some answers.

Also, to answer your question about me growing as a magician, I never once said in my initial post, nor any other posts regarding this matter that I am looking to grow as a magician. Please show me where I did. I am asking a question because of my own curiosity. Is this such a bad thing? Is it against the rules, or your rules, here to seek answers to accusations I have read about or heard about?

If I may ask you the same type of question, with your HUGE vocabulary... How is you responding in this thread helping YOU further your growth as a magician? Any idea? Honestly, I really don't care. If you do not like my questions, then just don't read my posts, or just do not reply to them.


Have a WONDERFUL day, and may all your MARLO be true.



Thank You,
Trini