You continue to evade the issue, however, and if you look closely enough you can find other inconsequential errors. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

There is a larger question here, one that isn’t simply a matter of style and etiquette: what value do you place on clear use of language? Since your self-described tasks in “taking on the system” are so great, wouldn’t it be better if you communicated in ways that don’t involve conspicuous misuse of important verbs?

The hasbara manual doesn’t teach the things how to address actual content, only how to misdirect, obfuscate or otherwise flame a discussion into something “safe”.

So today I have had had a few moments to go back and review your complaints. Your original (first) post above, and further references (of yours) to my story that follow it, begin by questioning the logic of my thinking or veracity of my assertions. In fact, you insert that comment by Emerson about a hobgoblin of small minds, and your usage is not friendly or respectful, but sets the tone for your general inclination to ridicule and disparage me.

At first, your attention to my use or abuse of sic was merely a small PS. However, once someone else (3bancan) set out to “correct” you on the usage of sic, according to their own mindset, and having returned your somewhat snotty comment with an equally sharp barb, then you set off to wage a small war on the subject of the usage and abusage of sic.

3bancan commented that neither you nor the person before you who declared my work herein to be, in so many words, a conspiratorial conglomeration of unverified assertions, had responded to my request to provide some examples.

At last I came along and asserted that I agreed with 3 bancan on the use of sic. By this time you are fully engaged in proving the correct use of sic — according to your worldview.

On the usage or abusage of sic:

I agree with you. I’ve reviewed my two uses of sic in my story. One is conventional and “correct” according to style manuals and whatnot. The other — preceding “enlightened” is my own usage, and while its usage was clear to 3bancan, and to me, it seems your argument is that its abusage is somehow dangerous. I don’t understand your logic. What I do understand is that my usage may cause confusion to some who do not understand it. I don’t see that as problematic, although I generally aspire to correct usage according to various established dictates. In sharp contradistinction, I used sic very intentionally, following upon “enlightened”, because the arrogance and white superiority that accompanies the usual western epistemology makes me sic. I get tired of writing “so-called” in advance of “human rights” or “democracy” or “freedom” when in fact what we are talking about is a selective or hypocritical application of human rights, or a faux democracy, or enslavement (in absence of freedom, in, for example, such places as the United States, or in such personal choices as owning an automobile). So, the fact that my usage is formally an abusage doesn’t really bother me at all, especially when I am certain that such a bright [sic] mind as your own is capable of adducing my meaning, and where I am, in the end, hopeful that the slaughtering of innocent people or the lies of the propaganda system will be of greater concern than my grammatical errors or mispelling or my personalized use of sic. I will perhaps be more careful, in future, as to how I chose to use sic. On the other hand, because I am inherently challenging white supremacy it rather suits my purpose, and my whim, to use sic in a more liberal way, as I don’t have a lot of respect for a system of thought and way of being that declares that I cannot use sic in a way that I like, but meanwhile abdicates all personal responsibility for participation in and support of that system’s destruction of people and nature and everything that I care about, and everything that our lives depend upon. All said and done, the dictates of Eric Partridge and/or Strunk and White are something else that I should like to challenge for their hypocrisy.

So, at last, we get back to the subject of real import: the content of my article, for which you have offered some rather offensive criticisms and sarcastic comments and at least one snotty comment. (Note that my use of the adjective “snotty” to describe your comment feels appropriate and is not in any way suggestive of my own participation in your name-calling).

If you (or the original commenter) would kindly provide a few examples of what you consider to be “unverifiable assertions” or “conspiracy theories” etc. etc. etc. I would be happy to address these points.

blessings
keith

Thank you, Mr. Snow, for your excellent article that exposes the real motifs behind this vicious propaganda against Gaddafi.

The Propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi has reached to a new level. This time many so called “progressive” sites jumped on the bandwagon and thus they exposed themselves what they really are, a US government front. Some were printing Al Jazeera’s propaganda against Libya. The ignorant Americans were feed with many unconfirmed inflammatory reports from Al Jazeera, a media outlet in the service of the Imperialist’s geopolitical agenda in the Middle East and North Africa, through ‘progressives’ such as “INFORMED COMMENT”. Now, we know whom they are really serving.

The Zionists/imperialists used the same propaganda campaign against Al Bashir and were able to fulfill one of their goals in Southern Sudan, to partition the country through destabilization of Sudan. The war criminals in Washing brought unfounded charges against Al Bashir, “genocide” HOAX, similar to baseless accusation made against Gaddafi, “genocide in Libya” by war criminals including Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice who has been frequently address as a LIAR.

We appreciate this article and we hope to read more of your articles based on good and fair research here and elsewhere about the latest development in Sudan. The evil empire intend to partition Darfur by propaganda campaign therefore, we should expect to see more constructed violence in Darfur and Southern Sudan soon.

@Deadbeat, yeah, right on brother.

@Dbstoned — you winned [sic].

It helps to see how so-called “Marxists” are joining in on the demonetization of Qaddafi which puts them on the same side of Western Zionist Imperialism. Qaddafi has for years supported many nationalist movements against Western Imperialism and has long supported pan-Africanism.

What appears to be happening in Libya is a counter-revolution against Qaddafi and the Libyan people in order to rob them of their resources and improved living standards under Qaddafi that will only advance Zionism and Western Capitalist goals.

Regardless of what one thinks of Qaddafi or believes about Libya, confronting Zionism and Western Imperialism must be the position of those who identify as Leftists. Any other stance IMO is betrayal.

But the distinguished fiction writer and essayist David Wallace Foster aside (invoked broadly, without any specific reference—evidently a KHS specialty), the matter has been very broadly established in prose for a wide range of journalistic and professional writing; a sampling of simple redactions of the conventions is appended below.

The point again, however, is not a matter of stylistic usage (and perhaps in this on-line venue anything goes, in which case the whole point of using “[sic]” is lost). The point is that error—even when pushed right into the faces of some—is not recognized as such. This is dangerous…

I could adduce dozens of such usage guides:

[1] The Latin word “sic”–meaning “thus” or “so”–is used in documents to draw the reader’s attention to an error in something that has been quoted. This could be a factual error, a mistake in printing, incorrect grammar or a misspelled word. It’s usually surrounded by brackets. Using [sic] allows writers to remain faithful to their sources without sacrificing accuracy. It conveys the message: “This is exactly how these words appeared originally, including the mistake noted.” Using [sic] to note mistakes is a comparatively modern practice. Merriam-Webster dates the first use for this purpose as approximately 1859.

[2] You should at least know what ”sic” means. It is a Latin word that roughly translates to “in such a manner” or “as such.” That’s not really how we use it today, however. Instead, you’ll find that when writers are quoting the work or words of other people, they’ll insert [sic] to indicate that the quote has been reproduced verbatim. Typically, the quote will contain an incorrect or strange spelling of some kind and the writer wants to preserve that without it appearing to be a typo on their part. In terms of usage, [sic] is generally used to preserve an incorrect spelling, but it can also be used to preserve an inaccuracy in a quote as well. Here are a couple of examples from President George W. Bush:

“We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation [sic] that suffers from incredible disease.”

“I hear there’s rumors on the Internets [sic] that we’re going to have a draft.”

[3] When quoting or paraphrasing someone else’s words or work in your writing, you need to give credit to the original author or publication. Occasionally, you may come across a quote that will enhance your article or paper, but uses outdated language or includes a misspelled word. You can still use the source as long as you follow the quote with “sic.”

Identification
The word “sic” is Latin in origin and means “thus” or “so,” according to the Modern Language Association (MLA) Handbook.

Function
Inserting sic following a quote indicates “the quotation is accurate even though the spelling or logic might make [the reader] think otherwise,” according to the Modern Language Association Handbook.

Effects
The use of sic tells the reader that you recognize the error or outdated spelling within the quotation, but quoted it verbatim.

Placement
When sic follows a quotation, place it in parenthesis outside the quote marks and before the final punctuation, as in: “I misplaced my checbook” (sic). To insert sic within the quotation immediately after an error or misspelled word, place it in square brackets, as in: “I misplaced my checbook [sic].”

Considerations
While the Modern Language Association format does not call for sic to be italicized, some writing formats and style guides, including the APA Stylebook, do. In formal writing, refer to the appropriate format or style guide for clarification.

@DBStoned — it is correctly pointed out that you do not seem to understand the contemporary and many usages of ‘sic’. I’m not going to argue with you. Read David Foster Wallace for a real mind-expander on that.

Also, you seem to take some kind of issue with my point about Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying” —

>>>>>KHS: “…such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is *not one reference* to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation ….” <<<<<

However, what your point is is unclear. If you would care to elaborate it I will gladly clarify.

I see nothing else worth replying to, or clear enough that it is either asking for or expecting my comment.

blessings
keith

Who has the money the gun’s the tank’s could it be the momentary master of a fraction of a dot with oil and gas such a lucky human.

If advanced spacefaring aliens exploit resources like humans we’d better hope they don’t find us anytime soon. …

“There have been a number of times in the past when our survival has been touch-and-go,” explains Hawking at Big Think, mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis, and “the frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future…. Our population and our use of the finite resources of the planet earth are growing exponentially along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill,” while “our genetic code still caries our selfish and aggressive instincts” Hawking

That’s weird as we never hear Palin or Huckabbee maybe Newt ever say anything like that the real thinkers of our time and in the past. Mere fiction…………………………

DBstoned seems to find it difficult to understand plain English sentences…

But I’ve lost interest myself, and wish 3bancan good luck in finding his way out of at least his present error….he’ll have to do so on her/his own.

“Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world” is ok, as its meaning is “Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western self-professed/socalled “enlightened” world / by the western world which hubristically prides itself to be enlightened.”

As I said earlier, DBstoned’s idiotic nitpicking is correctly covered by “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”…

KHS wrote the following sentence, quoting nothing:

“Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world.”

His use of “[sic]” is in error, a very common error to be sure, of the sort that I surmise Imho is constantly making, given that he makes the error in commenting on a error being pointed out.

The task of providing references is KHS’s, not his critics’. Imho seems to inhabit a world in which the size of mind is irrelevant—small, large, or jumbo—because a lack of clarity and knowledge blights all.

Imho KHS’s use of “sic” is ok. It’s DBstoned who doesn’t seem to be familiar with its uses and whose nitpicking is correctly covered by “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
It’s curious that both Samhain3783 and DBstoned accuse KHS of pretzel logic, nonsense and preposterous conspiracy theories but offer not a single “supported” (sic!) and “verifiable” (sic!!) assertion/reference – except if one counts “not a single supporting reference for what many would consider preposterous conspiracy theory” as one…

Samhain3783: “The title of this should have been “Unverifiable Assertions.” The maps are interesting and the entire theory would make for a good geo-political thriller, the author uses so much pretzel logic and completely unsupported assertions that this comes off like a Glenn Beck segment.”

KHS: “Samhain3783 — please provide me with a few examples of what you consider ‘unsupported assertions.’ Or are you merely complaining that I don’t use footnotes?”

KHS: “…such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is *not one reference* to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation ….”

Hard to know just what KHS thinks about the value of “references.” And after all, Emerson did declare that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” What we have in KHS is a mind so vast as to take in all manner of nonsense and regurgitate it in what Samhain3783 rightly calls “pretzel logic”—altogether a suitably mixed metaphor.

PS: style note to KHS…learn the correct use of “sic” (hint” it’s Latin, and it has a very specific purpose for quoted words, NOT one’s own)