tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post3026798858809521036..comments2024-01-21T02:58:08.208-05:00Comments on On the Main Line: A primary source for seconday sources on Frankel, Geiger, etc.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-66521017403688239722010-02-24T12:38:58.072-05:002010-02-24T12:38:58.072-05:00Thank — you.
Putting that aside, I just don't...Thank — you.<br /><br />Putting that aside, I just don't see how this makes this quote nefariously worse from his perspective. Maybe if there were no "perhaps."S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-70556554205044489592010-02-24T12:36:21.443-05:002010-02-24T12:36:21.443-05:00Anyway, putting aside the lesson in typography and...Anyway, putting aside the lesson in typography and HTML entities, the em dashes make haplography a less likely explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-67314362653196986632010-02-24T12:34:33.031-05:002010-02-24T12:34:33.031-05:00That's an em dash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...That's an em dash:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Em_dash<br /><br />You get it in a comment by typing &mdash;. See: —Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-12812666942632977602010-02-24T12:29:36.160-05:002010-02-24T12:29:36.160-05:00Yes (except, of course, it's not dashes; it...Yes (except, of course, it's not dashes; it's a long - character which I can't make here, so I represent it by two dashes).S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-8640256648830592732010-02-24T12:21:42.599-05:002010-02-24T12:21:42.599-05:00Perhaps it was a case of haplography. Are there em...Perhaps it was a case of haplography. Are there em dashes in the original?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-86358352947839498882010-02-24T12:16:58.675-05:002010-02-24T12:16:58.675-05:00Correct. It's what I meant to write. However, ...Correct. It's what I meant to write. However, since the actual quote is not exactly much more flattering to Geiger (at least from an Orthodox perspective) I don't see the value in misquoting, and would be open to the possibility that it was just an error an Keleman's part. At least he cited his source so we can look it up, unlike the other two.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-4971815507319300672010-02-24T12:10:39.151-05:002010-02-24T12:10:39.151-05:00"it is interesting that Keleman cites it only..."it is interesting that Keleman cites it only partially."<br /><br />Unless Keleman used ellipses, that's not a partial citation, it's a (malicious) misquote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com