Posted on 07/30/2010 4:05:05 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Don’t you mean “shouldn’t”?
Edit now means to alter not excerpt.
The left is trying to accuse Breitbart of editing/altering the clip. Being precise in language by stating it was an excerpt DOES matter. The EXCERPT that he posted included Saint Shirley's "mea culpa" which the NAACP did NOT applaud as they had her racism.
The press is planting the idea that this was always about Sherrod and that he doctored the tape. It was not.
I have to admit, at the beginning of this story, even I , a great admirer of Breitbart and his tactics, was down on him for a misstep with this one, owing strictly to the way this was characterized in the media. But Breitbart is way too wily and creative in the way he does things-—the truth he was trying to coax out of it, eventually does come out.
But the official story, this one even having Obama as a vocal participant, is a very different one, and the one the general public will remember, unfortunately.
Words do have meaning. In this case both ‘edit’ and ‘excerpt’ mean to ‘select’ or ‘cut out’ sections of the original material. And the 1913 definitions do have meaning, and do apply just as well to audio-visual material as they do to written matter.
It’s interesting. You run around like a Robo-chicken sqawking “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” brrraawkk “Words have meaning!” “Words have meaning!” brraawkk
But then you DENY that the meaning in a dictionary that is 97 years old no longer means what it says.
That’s called what? Maybe you know the word to describe it. Cognitive dissonance? Schizophrenia? ADD?
Just to be clear, in case you might think I don’t like you or something like that: I like you.
I think you are another great Freeper.
Just wrong on this issue of the meanings of edit and excerpt.
It's called outdated. Modern definitions apply when one is talking about modern society and their understanding. Especially with all the "special" edits that make the rounds in email and on You Tube. You can make anyone say anything with editing now. Excerpted and edited means something entirely different in 2010 than it meant in 1913.
Again, by using the word "edit" the press is trying to smear Breitbart by saying he altered the tape to make it appear that she said something that she didn't. I'm sorry that you don't get it.
Disagreement only means hatred to the left. Because they are children. I've been married 40 years and never made my Hubby sleep on the couch. LOL
They are still waiting in the corners to receive slave reparations to game the systems, like the usurper and his gram-ma Toot did???
Take, for example, what I heard on a top of the hour radio news report on the subject. I can't remember if it was Fox news or ABC:
'The Whitehouse today apologized for the firing of Ms. Sherrod based on comments she made that were take dramatically out of context.'
The context of what she said was complete in the EXCERPT and not mitigated by the totality of the speech. In fact she admitted her bigotry remains to this day, and still foments racial discord by reinforcing the lie that white people are stealing the elections.
This post was only EDITED for emphasis, punctuation and spelling. Any remaining errors can be attributed to insufficient intake of coffee.
Excerpt means "to take an unaltered selection out of"
Using the word "edit" to describe an unaltered excerpt is playing the leftists game. We must control the terms used in order to win the fight.
This post was only EDITED for emphasis, punctuation and spelling. Any remaining errors can be attributed to insufficient intake of coffee.
Boy I hear THAT! :-)
Well a hundred thousand is just Georgia peanuts to fifteen mil!!!
There is a part of the recording that indicates something was edited out. How much and what was said remains a mystery, but I would love it if Breitbart ends up with that clip.
Now THAT would be great. I have read several times that people thought the original was edited. They said it was explained that the NAACP changed tapes during her speech. Um, yeah.
Well then, this is yet another juicy tidbit for Breitbart's defense lawyer to get into, along with why Ms. Sherrod felt it necessary to send an email to Vilsack to give him a head's up, warn him that this video existed FOUR DAYS BEFORE it was aired on Big Government -- he can ask her why she was so concerned, worried to the point of feeling the need to alert the head honcho.
Bring it on, Shirley.
Quit hijacking the thread. What Breitbart did was excerpt a section of the entire video. Actually, whoever emailed him the video did the job. He just posted what he had been given.
In the big picture, your derailing the thread over semantics is taking the focus off of this marxist, racist, money grubbing fame whore.
The real nugget of information is that her husband was given a FCC license so that now they can communicate to their people, hence the reason she came out attacking Fox News.
we need an edit button! your should be you’re
Tapes? They still use tapes? With all of the government assistance they receive, they can't afford to go to DVR.
Anyway, I thought the Breitbart recording was not from that source. If so, it should have recorded the missing piece. Regardless, she did continue speaking and therefore it was NOT the 'whole speech'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.