Randy Cassingham's Blog

Normally I am impressed by the solidity of your arguments and tend to find myself laughing at the poor person you are correcting when you respond to a complaint or unimpressed missive of some sort. I think you might have got this one wrong though.

In your response to Dr. Bob you say that "*I* did not say that the web site in question was a hoax; I wouldn't, since I haven't seen it." However, the original story, "Exploding Idiocy Syndrome", contains the sentence "The site was a hoax." And as the original was not surrounded by quotation marks we have to assume that it is the opinion of the author and not a quote from Susan M. Murray from the Toronto Reference Library, who had been quoted previously in the piece.

As I say, normally a big fan of the Randy logic train but I think this one may have missed a station!

---

Not at all. As stated for years and years, ALL stories in my column are summarized rewrites using facts from the original story. The source stories, which (again as stated since 1994) are from "legitimate, mainstream newspapers". I build my version of the story from the quotes AND factoids included in the source -- I don't think it's possible to do it any other way.

So that's the general case. In the specifics here, the entire point of the story was that people were letting themselves be panicked by hoax web sites; that the web sites in question are hoaxes is a given, so why bother going to the trouble of getting a specific quote to say it when I can just relate the fact and move on? I only get about 75 words to get through it all, so every word counts. If someone reads too fast and misses the point, then they deserve the "Duh!" -rc