[DC 86]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17297.msg201354#msg201354 date=1505758321]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17297.msg201316#msg201316 date=1505745709]

Did you read the article?  The writer, who interviewed Shaw, wrote "You can hear the contempt in Shaw's words"

The writer didn't interview Shaw, he re-printed a quote from a SJMN article and assigned his interpretation.

The contempt that he "heard" was not literal, it's his personal analysis of a quote that he read.
[/quote]

Oh, well it's totally invalid then.
[/quote]

My point is that it's one man's reading of a third party quote, no more or less valid than JPRI's interpretation, which I took to mean that Shaw's comments (especially when taken in their entirety, not just the selected quote in GQ's article) didn't sound personally contemptuous of Rosen, although he obviously disagreed. The author of the GQ piece didn't meet Shaw in person, so why would his interpretation of a quote carry any more weight than JPRI's or yours or mine?

[DC 86]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17297.msg201354#msg201354 date=1505758321]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17297.msg201316#msg201316 date=1505745709]

Did you read the article?  The writer, who interviewed Shaw, wrote "You can hear the contempt in Shaw's words"

The writer didn't interview Shaw, he re-printed a quote from a SJMN article and assigned his interpretation.

The contempt that he "heard" was not literal, it's his personal analysis of a quote that he read.
[/quote]

Oh, well it's totally invalid then.
[/quote]

My point is that it's one man's reading of a third party quote, no more or less valid than JPRI's interpretation, which I took to mean that Shaw's comments (especially when taken in their entirety, not just the selected quote in GQ's article) didn't sound personally contemptuous of Rosen, although he obviously disagreed. The author of the GQ piece didn't meet Shaw in person, so why would his interpretation of a quote carry any more weight than JPRI's or yours or mine?