Robin……..point by point
1) Um, Jeffrey, just one small matter.
You say, and triumphantly draw attention to, this:
<<
“Jump-cut ... [SNIP]
This was one of the two correct definitions you quoted in that post. The third was incorrect, which you acknowledged in the same post by saying:
“They are adequate to the extent that we have found by looking at them that one is incorrect. The incorrect one saying that a jump cut is a cut from one scene to another scene.”
....
Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct.
>>
You might have some basis for your argument if I *had acknowledged this,
Robin, your saying “if I had acknowledged" it, I’m afraid is just another example of your semantic obfuscation, which along with your tendency to cut and paste in a randomly staggered manner and to use punctuation marks such as: * >> << [ { etc. seem designed to confuse rather than genuinely enlighten.
The point of the last comment you quote (“Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct”) was explained in my last post. You only partially quoted it, by the way. The full statement is this:
“Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct. If we are to argue with any sense of purpose, then logic has to be taken into account. And you have, here, demonstrated that you agreed (or at least you did when you wrote that post) with Alison’s definition; as her definition matches Frank Eugene Beaver and Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.”
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=POETRYETC;aa8c64fb.1005
Your failure to see the logic in this statement is unfortunate, as it makes me think that any further appeals to your sense of logic (wherever it may be) will be a waste of time. (see below for more on this.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2) and *had said what you say I said:
“They are adequate to the extent that we have found by looking at them that one is incorrect. The incorrect one saying that a jump cut is a cut from one scene to another scene.”
This is a comment by me, not you. I don’t recall attributing it to you. I made the comment here:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1005&L=POETRYETC&P=R9480&1=POETRYETC&9=A&J=on&X=71610E2E6DFD4C4C3C&Y=argotist%40fsmail.net&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3) Unfortunately (I'll append the entire post to save people the trouble of looking it up -- the relevant part is right at the end), the words in question are yours, not mine.
<<
[RH] 4) “(Equally, I'd want to say that none of the three seem to me, for various reasons, to be entirely adequate in addressing even the specialist sense [or senses] of "jump-cut" as it's discussed or referred to in a variety of film studies sources that I've consulted since this thread began.)”
[JS] They are adequate to the extent that we have found by looking at them that one is incorrect. The incorrect one being that a jump cut is a cut from one scene to another scene.
>>
Robin, here is the full link so people can see it in context:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1005&L=POETRYETC&P=R9480&1=POETRYETC&9=A&J=on&X=71610E2E6DFD4C4C3C&Y=argotist%40fsmail.net&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
I think most will see that what I say as perfectly clear, and is an address to the wider point I have been making that you were trying to deny that you had recently (at that point) accepted Beaver’s definition of "jump cut".
Again all this was detailed in my last response to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4) I've heard of putting words into other people's mouths, but when it comes to your putting *your words into my mouth ... well, *something fails me.
Robin, see point 3, above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5) Then you continue -- and these *are your own words: "Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct."
I'm sure there's a name for this particular logical fallacy that, in the name of logic, you so triumphantly propound. Is it the Negative Inference Fallacy? I must confess I spent more time at university studying modern formal logic than I did on Aristotelian logic, but I do remember at least enough to be able to translate what you say into formal boolean terms:
If not-A, then B
Wow!! That's logic for you, said Humpty Dumpty.
But Robin, how is this a refutation of the use of logic in my statement? You admit, yourself, you are not sure if it is fallacious, as you can’t be sure it is an example of Negative Inference Fallacy. You then mention how you studied some logic at university, and then you bring in George Boole to say “if not-A, then B", then you mention Humpty Dumpty. But you don’t demonstrate how the statement: “Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct” is logically inappropriate.
Again here is the full quotation from which you draw on only a portion:
“Your acknowledging that one was incorrect, logically infers that the two others were correct. If we are to argue with any sense of purpose, then logic has to be taken into account. And you have, here, demonstrated that you agreed (or at least you did when you wrote that post) with Alison’s definition; as her definition matches Frank Eugene Beaver and Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.”
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=POETRYETC;aa8c64fb.1005
I think most people would see the logic in this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<
6) If we are to argue with any sense of purpose, then logic has to be taken into account. ...
>>
Quite. See above.
As I said above, Robin, I would continue appealing to your sense of logic, but I really don’t think you have one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7) In managing to place such emphasis on something which *you said, not me, then going on to draw attention to *my lack of logic, you have certainly demonstrated, better than I could have done, why I feel quite justified in deciding that there's no reason on earth why I should read on.
To quote Dorothy Parker: "Tonstant Weader fwowed up"
Robin, if you want to avoid sensibly addressing my several detailed and well-cited responses during the past few days you can. Your dishonest debating tactics lead me to assume you are a bit of a joker, and like to wind people up. That’s ok, and sometimes winding people up can be refreshing. You seem to do it to extremes, though.
