Twisting Language
Thursday, May 5th, 2005Town Hall columnist Mike S. Adams has written an article in which he rails against leftist dogma in the University classroom.
I read his column from time to time, and though I generally agree with conservative columnists, Mr. Adams has a tendency to twist events and statements in a manner I more commonly observe coming from the other side of the political fence.
The following is the text of an email I just sent him:
From your article:
[College President Ian Newbould said,] “It should be noted that our students are intelligent and thoughtful. They can, and often do, disagree with Professor Christensen, without academic penalty.”
Note that Newbould states that students “often” disagree without penalty. Does that mean that they sometimes, or perhaps often, disagree with penalty?
With respect, Mr. Adams — you appear to be twisting his words in your zeal to make your point. The meat of the statement is: “They can… disagree with Professor Christensen, without academic penalty.” “[A]nd often do” is grammatically and logically a subsidiary phrase within the sentence.
You come precariously close to doing to Newbould what the bully did in your school days. His statement, (if it is to believed, of course) pretty clearly states that the answer to you question is “No”.
I’ve read a good number of your articles, and though you tend to have the right idea, you also have a tendency to weaken your own point by substituting specious nitpicking for genuine argument.
There can be no constructive discussion in the absence of intellectual honesty. Adams’ twisting of language is either a subtle form of deception, or evidence of a genuine inability to grasp hard logic. Either way he makes conservatives look petty and insincere.
Either way it is unacceptable from either side of the political fence.



