Is it okay for another poster to deceptively and intentionally misrepresent another person’s posts? Repeatedly?
In this thread
Troppus does this to me in post 151. I call her out on her it, but she refuses to correct her assertions or apologize. Then she apparently does it repeatedly to colander, who had complained about it several times, but her last admonishments to cut it out could be found at post 247. Finally, Helena330 demands she stop the same thing too in post 248.
And I’ve also seen her do it in other threads. Most recently the bicyclist rant in the pit and the off shoot to the above thread, about parents not always being the ones to blame for their child’s obesity, also in IMHO.
So, is this ok? I know she’s never going to admit she was wrong or apologize to anyone she keeps lying about their position, but I’d like to know if this is ok on the board in general? If it is, is the only recourse anyone has is to pit people like that? If not, what else can be done?
Altering your posts inside a quote box is not allowed, but creating a strawman argument by paraphrasing your post in a less than accurate way is a common debating style for certain posters.
Wow I can see why she seldom actually quotes people. I guess I figured it would somehow be against the rules or something if it was so blatant and constant, like how she almost permeates that thread with it.
But it’s good to know what’s the deal. I’ll handle it by doing one of the things you suggest. Thanks.
Did you report this to a mod and they didn’t react?
I had a hard time figuring out what the issue was by going back to that thread. It started when you reposted your quote, saying you bolded the key part, but none of it was bolded.
Probably true. But I had no idea that it could be one person’s entire MO throughout their whole posting history.
No I didn’t report it. I’d looked through the rules again and only saw what had previously been said; that it was a no no to change a poster’s words in the quote box. Which is why I asked here. It seemed related to that, but I wasn’t sure.
And I’d tried to bold that. I still sometimes screw up when I’m trying to code stuff from my phone. The gist was though that any time someone disagreed with parts of her argument, she would come back and give their motives a negative twist by paraphrasing their viewpoint to a strawman. The post that she did it to me is 151.
Nowhere did I even remotely imply any of the things that she has put in quotes. Also, as I mentioned, the posts from other members taking her to task were over the same exact issue. I hope that at least that was clearer.
ETA: I never called it discrimination either, as just another example. I said other people see it as that, but when confronted, all the facts are just ignored. Like I’m sure she’ll ignore the last two posters too and keep up strawmanning the hell out of every thread she participates in.
Ha. I didn’t get the memo. Maybe I’d stepped away for coffee then?
USA Today: “Jamboree campers thinned out: No obese Boy Scouts”
CNN: “Boy Scouts ban obese kids from outing”
NBC: “Obese Boy Scouts left out of national gathering”
Troppus: “Disney excludes pregnant women from rides”
Do see any similarity in the above statements which made national headlines, and the statement I made? Those headlines made an abbreviated, blanket statement which most people understand. But those headlines aren’t “the whole truth” as you’ve demanded it. *All *obese Boy Scouts are not banned. Did you apply the same fervor to your letters to the editor insisting they correct the headlines to “Morbidly obese Boy Scouts with BMI of 40+ banned from Jamboree”?
I’m guessing you didn’t. You just chased me through the thread to push an unimportant point because… why? Here, look at your posts:
I thought you went a little shrill trying to force the Disney issue, and didn’t feel your point was relevant to the discussion. You can’t force someone to respond you, and chasing them repeatedly through a thread is just… odd. Someone on the internet is wrong, I guess you feel it’s your job to right the travesty. Thing is, this is a casual conversation, I didn’t provide cites, and I’m pretty sure that most readers knew that Disney has attractions that pregnant women can attend, well, because family. But the larger point is that parks have the right to protect attendees from themselves, and themselves from liability. Your needling wasn’t necessary, unless you do make a habit of correcting headlines, professional writers, reporters, etc.
The moderators may very well tell me to tone it down or post in a less contentious manner, and I’ll follow their instructions. But they aren’t going to force posters to apologize to you for declining to respond to your repeated demands for attention, I’m certain of that.
Since the question seems to have been answered to the OP’s satisfaction, I’m going to close this. If you and Troppus have further issues to resolve, it would be best to take it to the Pit rather than continue the argument here.
