<<
Robin, if you want to keep this discussion going that is your business. But
it is, no doubt, beginning to tire most of those following it.
>>
There's always the delete key, Jeffrey.
<<
Alison and I have made our positions clear regarding the definition of a
jump cut.
>>
Alison did, you didn't. Alison backed up her original statement by
consulting three Australian film makers, you simply carried on asserting.
You, Senator, are no Jack Kennedy.
<<
You belatedly came to agree with this definition,
>>
What definition? In the course of this thread, you've given several, few of
them matching the previous one, and hardly any of them substantiated by any
reference other than to your Special Knowledge.
As to Katz, I neither agreed nor disagreed, but simply put it forward.
Something else entirely (and a distinction that you seem singularly unable
to comprehend). As a starting point. If you feel happy with it, and feel
that it somehow "proves" what you've said, so be it. The appeal to
authority has a long tradition, though I've rarely seen it used so crudely
as you do, in what is usually a relatively sophisticated intellectual
environment.
<<
though at the same time (and with a flourish of self-congratulation, laced
with smugness) claiming that you were first person in this discussion to
have found the correct definition, and that you were the first person to
argue for it here.
>>
Actually, I didn't say I'd found the correct definition. What I did was
proffer a properly cited reference that I hoped would be acceptable to both
sides of this argument. Actually, that's not true. I hoped it would
provide a common ground between *Alison and myself. Frankly, you've done
nothing to demonstrate that I should pay any attention to your
contributions.
(Incidentally, I wouldn't myself use the phrase "correct definition". It
implies a whole set of linguistic assumptions that I find quite alien and
unacceptable.)
<<
Clearly, this is not the case, as anyone can establish by re-reading this
thread (and the various off-shoots to it).
>>
Oddly enough, one thing which had occurred to me to do was to trace through
this thread and see how your treatment of the term "jump cut" evolved. I
might still do so. Though I can't imagine anyone other than me having the
patience to do so.
<<
Now that this claim has been shown to be wrong, you wish to backtrack
(presumably, in a face-saving effort to regain lost ground) to your former
position of questioning the definition’s accuracy.
>>
Gosh, so *that's what I was doing? And there I was, thinking I was simply
trying to untease the meaning of a contested term.
<<
Credit is, of course, due to you for your “discovery” that the term “jump
cut” first appeared in forestry. However, from this, you convinced yourself
that there was a more than coincidental connection between the term’s
appearance in forestry and its appearance in film, and that the use of the
term in film was a direct borrowing of the term’s usage in forestry. This
may, indeed, be the case, but you offered no reasoning for this assumption.
>>
Well, actually Victor Steinbock (on ADS-l) and myself (on poetryetc)
independently posted to the same effect. I wouldn't like to take all the
credit (and Victor was more skeptical than myself of a connection between
forestry and film).
<<
It seems to me, that your attempting to extend this discussion beyond its
logical conclusion is needlessly confrontational, as well as time consuming
for everyone concerned. Therefore, I appeal to any sense of intellectual
honesty you may have left, and ask you to graciously close the discussion
now.
>>
The (unintended?) irony of that final paragraph almost beggars belief.
I don't know whether your misrepresentation of my position as demonstrated
in this post of yours represents obtuseness or malice, but the end result is
the same.
However, as you point out, this material is archived, so anyone who wishes
to judge between us is at liberty to see whether your description of what
has occurred is correct.
R.
|