I think the Papers are quite clear in their example and instruction; and my personal experience belies the suggestion that there exists any broad belief that religionists, most especially UB students, shun community/secular activism. I claim exactly the opposite….and not just for myself but for the many, many, many students I know and have met over the years.
I am about to watch the interview (and have enjoyed other interviews by Martin already). But whether I agree with the one being interviewed or not is irrelevant to my point; and I’ll not comment – agree or disagree – with someone who is not here to speak for themselves and engage in actual conversation.
Bradly, regardless of your perceived tone, I was more interested in your contradictory statements above which, to me sound hypocritical, but that’s only what I perceived and thought it to be relevant, in that I have underlined, above to two of your statements which seemed to contradict their points as you made them, although when someone gets on a bandwagon, they often don’t realize what they are presenting as others might read into them a different perspective, to be sure.
In that, I am nitpicking now, in your first statement above make your statement and attach “many, many, many students I know and have met”, which implies, you speak for them also, yet they are not present to either “agree or disagree” that you speak for them also but, in your following statement, you acknowledge not having viewed the video presentation, have assessed that “Martin”/Martine’s what she has presented after a prefix and later an answer to a direct question, have made a presumption of error on her part, in that you imply an intrusion on behalf of the person being interviewed, where as you said above, “with someone who is not here to speak for themselves”, is what you actually have, in your previous statement had presumed speaking for others, who are not here to “agree or disagree”.
Therefore, I found it confusing as to your statements and the previous tone presented in your choice of words as I also found its tonal quality as little harsh, but we’ve discussed this before, and is now mute.
Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to view the video discussion and was primarily disturbed in that I noticed the presented cut was edited, and at first thought it to edit out specific content, but later made a presumption that the subject may have some condition which might be related to a seizure disorder, similar to “Michael J, Fox” deals with which is “Parkinson’s disease”, where these subjects often will hold onto something, like a cup, in this subjects case, because her speech otherwise seems extremely lucid, therefore I was able to omit other considerations as to the content of her presentation.
However, regardless of her responses, which seemed to follow along the guidance of the interviewer which in some cases were not necessarily always directed to specific UB subject matter but when put back on track by the interviewer, the subject veered off topic into that which seemed to concern her the most. I must admit that some of the questions presented by the interviewer where not heard as well as I would have liked, therefore I’m not sure as to the initial enticement given for the acceptance of the interview, as understood by the subject.
I must admit that the viewing of additional interviews would be needed, where the premise for the interview, as presented to the interviewed subject, would need to be scripted, and even the interview questions should be scripted where their various responses to the same questions would have more relevance to anticipated outcome.
Overall, I found the interview interesting, to say the least. Thanks for it presentation.
