Re: Distortion

From: Dan L Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]shu.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:04:15 -0400

On 07/16/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> I have noticed, in the ongoing discussions following my submission of
> a topic, question, or example, that there seems to be a tendency to
> over-simplify or to misread my original point on the part of some
> members of this group. This disturbs me. In some cases, the
> misunderstanding is so far-fetched as to appear to be deliberate
> distortion. I am hereby re-submitted my original point about
> reconstructing Mr Shakespeare's plays by using the analogy of
> reconstructing an ancient building from thousands of broken fragments
> (and, perhaps!, old paintings) many or some of which (the pieces)
> are missing. It is upon this particular analogy that I bring the
> discussion forward, not upon Mr Rioli's version.

Beg to differ with you. Mr. Rioli's hypothetical is extremely useful in analyzing your claim to originality in reconstruction of antique works. He quite accurately identified the core principal concerning your claim.

The fact that a thread does not progress in the exact manner that you may have envisioned does not mean that it is distorted, or that you have been misread.

---

Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu

---

Received on Fri Jul 17 1998 - 14:57:59 GMT