‘Marley23 is a great mod and a handsome devil to boot.’
Thanks, magellan01- you’re alright!
Because I wasn’t quoting any single poster. Saying that “everyone” is saying something., which is impossible until we allow multiple posters to make one post, is vastly different than deliberately misquoting one specific poster.
But you knew that. Next?
People are allowed to paraphrase what they think other posters are saying, and put those statements in quote marks, but they cannot put them in quote boxes. That is the rule.
People are also allowed to be wrong when they paraphrase. Paraphrasing is giving the gist of the message as that poster understands it. Misunderstanding happens.
BBBZZZZT! Nope. “Along the lines of” is clearly indicating a paraphrase.
Cite me that rule, stated as a rule, then.
“People are allowed to paraphrase what they think other posters are saying, and put those statements in quote marks, but they cannot put them in quote boxes. That is the rule.”
Dex’s warning, that I cited, refers to quoted material. That paragraph, the first in the section, makes no distinction between single-quotes, double quotes or quote boxes. None. Zero. Zilch.
Later on in that section he stresses that quoted material in quote boxes are especially never to tampered with in any way, but there is no such distinction mentioned in his inital paragraph between quotes inside quotatiopn mark and quotes inside quote boxes, only that falsely “attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.”
Which is exactly what Marley did. While posting as a poster, mind you. He misquoted me in order to reduce my argument to an oversimplified version of what I was saying , to put me a bad light.
Not a whisper of a sanction here. AMazing.
Where was that said, and by whom?
Oh.
It seems to me that you weren’t particularly judicious in your use of quotations in that thread, so I would think that means you know how the rules work. It was not clear to me why you felt attributing an opinion to one poster using quotes was awful and attributing an opinion to multiple people using quotes - or “predicting” someone’s opinion with quotes - was kosher.
The rule has already been quoted and explained to you several different ways. The exception proves the rule: C K Dexter Haven’s post says you can’t alter text inside the quote boxes; it follows that altering a quotation outside the quote boxes is OK.
The third paragraph could not be any more explicit: "Text inside
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct."
As part of that example, I’ll say that I don’t feel ladyfoxfyre did anything wrong. She summarised the point I made, or more precisely her understanding of that point, in a way that most readers would understand. By extension, I think this whole argument is over nothing.
It is necessary to furnish the background here in order to correct any misleading impression.
All following quotes are from:
All emphasis added by me, except for usernames, and the angle brackets appearing in reply #802, which were present in the original.
(reply #748, p15)
(#798, p16)
(#799, p16)
NB: Besides ignoring my emendation the sentence above is ungrammatical. The most reasonable interpretation seems to me that the writer meant to ask: “…at what point do you determine…?”
(#802, p17)
I thought the angle brackets would alert any reasonably diligent reader to the fact I had made an edit. In any case the other member misrepresented my position, and it was appropriate to correct him.
(#807, p17)
(#810, p17)
Tell me that you really don’t understand how a “predicted Marley reponse” is plainly not an actual quote.
Steophan said: “By extension, I think this whole argument, like most, is over PRR’s bruised ego.”
FTFY
Because you’re entirely in the wrong.
“Why, yes, I can admit when I’m wrong,” quoth pseduotriton ruber ruber never.
Because you’re wrong - and you can quote me on that.
No no, I merely insinuated that.
I understand it’s plainly not a quote. I am attempting to figure out how you can claim to be ignorant of the rules on using quotes - because in this thread you appear to be convinced I broke a rule - when you didn’t hesitate to use quotes to attribute opinions to people and obviously felt you were allowed to do so. Further, I am trying to figure out why you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "Text inside
[quote]
tags is sacrosanct." Plenty of examples have been furnished. What is the problem?
No, it is not. I quoted my mod note (and not your post) to illustrate how we handle altered text inside quote boxes, and that’s all. This is not going to become an argument about that thread.
This is the unintended consequence of moving mod criticism out of the pit. When complaints are spectacularly wrongheaded–as all of prr’s always are–rules prevent you from giving the OP the shit they desperately deserve.
All due respect, I urge you to reconsider your decision that “this is… going to become an argument about that thread.”