[Ben to Platt]
1) Platt read the Independent article as being critical of the NHS/or
socialized medicine.
2) Either the article was or was not critical of the NHS.
3a) If the article was critical of the NHS, then you can criticize
socialized
medicine.
3b) If the article was not critical of the NHS, then it's misleading, so you
can
criticize Jos Laycock.
I generally agree that all points are sound.
[Arlo]
No, Ben. All these points are not "sound". Platt read a headline and based
on an
ideological predisposition against "socialized" medicine, jumped to an
assumption before gathering what he lacked, and that is an awareness and
understanding of the NHS structure and history.
[Ben]
I take Platt to be an intelligent person and take him at his word that he
read the article to mean a certain thing. I can thus understand his
frustration that the article was written in a way such that he misread it.
In cases of miscommunication, I think the author and reader share
responsibility. Thus, point 3b--the point I think you're
contesting--stands.
_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
