Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 13:10:04 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Otabil and rhetoric

David Meadows wrote:
> 
> Geez, Steve; why is this such a big issue for you?
> 
> At 10:55 6/3/96 -0400, S. Thomas wrote:
> >David Meadows wrote:
> >>
> >> Style wasn't the issue with Mr. Otabil's posts; clarity was,
> >
> >Here is what you did say:
> > -What I *do* recommend to my students, however, is "Don't obfuscate your
> > -scholarly gleanings with overtly florid verbiage". 'nuff said?
> 
> As written, the entire sentence is a comment on clarity.

... with quite a swipe at style along the way, which you have at least
the good grace not to deny...

> >And also:
> > -Good to see the verbal advantage tapes are paying off for you. Here's a hint
> > -from someone who has consistently received excellent evaluations from his
> > -students -- don't try to impress people with large words; keep the heavy
> > -vocabulary to a minimum and your point will be oh so much more clear.
> 
> Again, the entire sentence, taken as a whole is about clarity.

... and again, with a patronizing swipe at style gratuitously thrown in...

> >I think these comments--"overtly florid", "don't try to impress people
> >with large words"--constitute a clear criticism of style, moreover in
> >rather a patronising tone.
> 
> Well they might, if you engage in taking two or three words out of context.
> Once again I reiterate. My comments were about clarity and I deal in
> complete sentences, not snippets taken out of context which, when taken out
> of context, take on a different meaning. The tone, especially the sentence
> with `obfuscate' as a main verb *was* patronizing. As I mentioned, that is
> something I advise my students. There is nothing wrong with being
> patronizing if you believe someone might benefit from it.

Patronize your children or your students.  Such behavior is
misplaced on this list.  Surely an aspiring classics professor
understands the importance of context in constraining appropriate
behavior.


> >Selective obtuseness, like selective scepticism, is a tactic used
> >by the tendentious.  I think you are engaged in it here.
> 
> 1. Where am I being selectively obtuse (and isn't that an oxymoron?)?

When used as tactic, obtuseness is feigned, not real.

> 2. What is selective scepticism (and am I engaged in that as well?)?

What else, at bottom, is "source criticism", when wielded by one 
who is player, pretending to be unbiased referee?

> 3. What is tendentious about my admission of what I don't understand in Mr.
> Otabil's post?

You take what was a general statement and attempt to apply to it
a predicate that was neither expressed nor implied, again 
demonstrating my point about the tactical value of obtuseness
when selectively applied by the tendentious.
As I had occasion once to say to Prof. Fisher, we are all entitled to
our bias.  What I object to is bias dressed up
as objectivity, laying spurious claim to dispassionate Reason. 
That preciely is the license that Mr. Otabil seeks to deny you in 
the quotation you pretend not to understand.  You, Mr. Meadows,
are not a referee in the contest; you are a contestant.  Get down
off your high horse.

> I find it very interesting that folks are so eager to defend Mr. Otabil, and
> yet no one is willing to tell me what the above paragraph is supposed to
> mean. Could it be that the defenders have no idea as well but  will defend
> it simply because I challenged it?

Maybe you *are* obtuse.  Naah...

> dm

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next