[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.
[Arlo] So the Guardian, a British publication, is at fault for not wording a headline so that an American reader would not draw a faulty conclusion based on his ideological preconceptions and lack of knowledge of the British healthcare system? C'mon.... And let's also foreground the subpoints. First, it was not just a simple assumption, it was an assumption that drove Platt to publically denounce an entire system of healthcare... based on a headline. When we stand up to make public statements, we should take the time to gather a little bit of factual information. Second, when Platt assumed the example as about "social" medicine, it was enough for him to denounce a system. When it was shown the example was about "private" medicine, did you hear the same denouncement? No, of course not. In fact you heard him shifting gears and agreeing with you about anecdotal evidence. If he agreed with you about this, why take one example and post a public condemnation of the NHS? Tell me something. Let's say Platt read the article and actually got it right, that he understood the example was showing a flaw in a privatized group. Do you think for one moment he would have posted "Private Health Care? No Thanks" to the message board? Of course not. Indeed, at that point he likely would've dismissed the magazine as having a "liberal bias". At least Rosanna Rosannadanna had the good sense to simple say "never mind". 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/
