THE ETHICS OF QUOTATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22609, 28 June 1935, Page 14

THE ETHICS OF QUOTATION

TO THE EDITOB

Sir, —" There happen to be people who have definite standards of right and wrong in the matter of quotation" (" Plain Bill," June 22). Quite so, and one of the most generally accepted of tlfese standards is that, when we quote from writings of other people, we enclose such quotations in inverted commas. Evidently this is not ono of "Plain Bill's" standards, for in this morning's issue he acknowledges that the sentence referred to was a quotation. We might excuse such an action by an ordinary " Henry Dubb," but when it is performed by one who sets himself up as a judge over others in the matter of strict accuracy in quotation, then, to say the least of it, we are surprised. He endeavours to make light of it, as he naturally would. He ignores my question, which was whether all the funny and silly things he has said about Dr Mlfil--lan now apply to himself? And may I ask another? Which is worst, to miss a, few words out of a quotation without altering the sense, or to put forward the writings of another as one's own? —I am. etc, A Daniel Come to Judgment. Dunedin South, June 26.

TO THE EDITOR , Sir, —The feathers are beginning to fly in the barnyard now, and it. looks as if " Plain Bill " will soon not have one left to fly with. His " explanation " of why he failed to put quotation marks around what he now acknowledges to be a quotation won't hold water or feathers either. As I have my work to do and have neither the time to write long letters, nor go reading literature, I would ask "Plain Bill" the name of the author of his now confessed quotation and chapter and verse for it.—l am, etc., CoCK-A-DoODLE DOO. June 26.

[We have omitted an alleged Limerick from the above letter. It. would seem to have been a mistake on our part to admit any original Limerick, and it is now suggested to correspondents that they will save their time if they refrain from an, attempt to compose verses of this kind for incorporation in their letters.— Ed. O.D.T.]

TO THE EDITOR Sib, —In his reply to my challenge. , " Plain Bill" says that he did not say , Dr M'Millan misused and misquoted the principles of Burke. Let us look at his letter: "Mr MacManus evades the single '•' issue raised by me—the. right or justifica- * tiori of a labour advocate ... to

. issue and misquote the principles and , writings of a great political philosopher." " After all his letters about Dr M'Millan. does " Plain Bill" now ask us to believe that by "Labour advocate" he did not mean Dr M'Millan and that by "great i political philosopher" he did not mean . Burke? That would be about as good as ..his lame excuse to "Daniel" for using .quotations without putting them in. quotation marks. I leave your readers to form their own opinions. of a nom de plume artist who wriggles, shuffles, backs, and fills in • this manner, but methinks that he has not much reason for his objection, to my association of the word "greasy" with the honourable word "Bill." —I am, etc.. > Dunedin, June 27. Greasy Bill.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—lf " Plain Bill" can only continue to write_ about a slight mistake 1 which Dr M'Millan is supposed to have '■ made but which did not to any extent alter the meaning of what Burke actually • meant, then he has very little to write . about. No doubt, there is an ulterior motive behind it all, and I venture to suggest, Mr Editor, that had "Plain ' Bill's" correspondence dealt with a Sub- • ject such as the immortality of the soul, you would have closed it. Such persistence suggests a reason, and " Plain Bill" may next November find that, instead of . having belittled a political opponent, he has belittled himself. —I am, etc., New Zealander. Waitaki Hydro, June 26. [Our correspondent's surmise is correct. Ed. 0.D.T.l