It’s on you to show that. I don’t believe I added anything to his claims. I’m not going to quote the whole (very wordy) article. I quoted bits and attacked his thesis.
I don’t know what you mean by “re-interpret”. I interpretted his article once because I only read it once. Of course I can only have my own interpretation. I am not a mind reader. If Doctorow feels he is being misinterpretted, he can revise or add clarity.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying. what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”. you chose to put words in his mouth. that’s bad faith.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying
Not at all. It’s very long and wordy article. It would be inefficient to requote the whole thing. I assume people have read it. It’s important to be concise in what I am responding to, and to transparently show my interpretation of what I read so someone has a chance to say “that’s not right” (which you have done, but failed to effectively support).
what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”.
That would falsely misrepresent my confidence. I am confident that I have comprehended Doctorow as he intends.
It’s on you to show that. I don’t believe I added anything to his claims. I’m not going to quote the whole (very wordy) article. I quoted bits and attacked his thesis.
it’s prima facie: you weren’t simply quoting him, you were re-interpreting what he was saying.
I don’t know what you mean by “re-interpret”. I interpretted his article once because I only read it once. Of course I can only have my own interpretation. I am not a mind reader. If Doctorow feels he is being misinterpretted, he can revise or add clarity.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying. what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”. you chose to put words in his mouth. that’s bad faith.
Not at all. It’s very long and wordy article. It would be inefficient to requote the whole thing. I assume people have read it. It’s important to be concise in what I am responding to, and to transparently show my interpretation of what I read so someone has a chance to say “that’s not right” (which you have done, but failed to effectively support).
That would falsely misrepresent my confidence. I am confident that I have comprehended Doctorow as he intends.
and I’m telling you that you have made a leap of logic
That’s a meaningless claim when you don’t articulate the “leap”.
I’ve done so numerous times
And you got it wrong. So if you’re trying to recycle the same claim rather than articulate a new “leap” in logic claim, it’s futile.