You are mistaken. What is the meaning of “falsely attributing a quote to another user”? You are interpreting that remark to apply regardless of method of presentation, but the rule states that the method of presentation is [noparse]
[quote]
[/noparse] tags.
Now I’m sure there’s a way to be a jerk by altering quotes and sticking them in quotation marks rather than quote boxes. I’m not going to set out to dream up an example that might get moderated. But the rule as written applies to the [noparse]
[quote]
[/noparse] tags, not any generic way of representing what someone said.
Quotation marks are used all the time to represent paraphrases or approximations or what they’re thinking rather than what they’re saying. That is typical for how people use them. To declare that off-limits on this board would be counter to how they are used in life, and would be impractical.
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 [noparse]
**Dex’s **first paragraph easily could have read "Text inside of
[quote]
boxes 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." The fact that he did not draw that distinction, but noted that “falsely attributing a quote” wherever it appears leads me strongly to believe that Dex intended that rule to apply to ALL quotes, and that the latter emphasis on quotes in the [noparse]
[quote]
[/noparse] boxes is a further distinction making the
[quote]
boxes especially noted. It would be easy enough, if he had intended any such sharp distinction as you are suggesting, to have noted “these strictures do NOT apply to quotations inside of quotation marks, where posters may mis-attribute others’ quotations, or intentions, at will.”
Since I am objecting so strongly to the gross oversimplification of my point for the purpose of ridiculing what I was saying, can you at least grant me that it’s not so clear that you were merely summarizing my point with no malicious intent. It’s probably going to be easier to continue this conversation if you could stop pissing on me and telling me it’s rain.
I have no idea which quote(s) in post #43 are incorrect and which are correctly rendered. Further, I would like to see where someone objected to having his words misattributed or misquoted and got told, as I was, by a Mod, that’s the way we roll around here. Words inside of quote marks are anyone’s game --it’s only words inside the quote boxes that you can never, ever, ever mess with.
I have no intention of arguing here about the other thread, only about the narrow technical issues raised in this thread by others, including you, but not by me.
And Yes it is necessary to furnish the background here: in order to correct any misleading impression that I may have commited any wrong of other than technicality-level. Someone not familiar with the background might think I had distorted another member’s argument. I had not. He had distorted mine and I was correcting him.
Look, you’re being almost impossibly whiny here. You’d like to see other people rising to this nigh-unattainable level of self-pity? I honestly would not. But if you really want to, you could try looking up brazil84; he’s constantly objecting to all paraphrases of his arguments (and if he finds this thread, he’ll doubtless object to this paraphrase as well). In all his challenges over the years to posters to cite-or-apologize, though, I’ve never once seen a mod back him up.
If someone paraphrases your argument incorrectly, you’ve got three choices:
Ignore the paraphrase. This is often the best response, if the problem with their paraphrase was minor, or if what they’re saying just isn’t very interesting.
Politely correct their paraphrase. This is often the best response, as by doing so you can clarify your position.
Freak out and start a thread in ATMB. How’s that working out for you?
**Dex’s **first paragraph easily could have read "Text inside of [noparse]
[quote]
[/noparse] boxes 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." The fact that he did not draw that distinction, but noted that “falsely attributing a quote” wherever it appears leads me strongly to believe that Dex intended that rule to apply to ALL quotes, and that the latter emphasis on quotes in the [noparse]
None of that is a moderating issue, and I thought it was a reasonable critique of the flaws in your argument. It’s no more malicious than the two posts I quoted upthread, and I’d argue it was significantly less so.
I’m not the one who says it happens all the time. Poster gets misquoted in quotation marks, he objects, and a mod tells him “Oh, chill out. Misattributing words inside quotation marks is just the way we roll here on the SD.” I say this doesn’t happen. If you say it does, show me a few examples.
Oh, get off it. If you’d just admit that you violated your own rules, and got away with it because who the hell is going to call you on it, I’d probably gotten out of your face already eight posts ago. Come on, the rules don’t apply to mods participating as posters, and you know it.
Poster gets misquoted in quotation marks, he objects: you gotta show that anyone besides you is whiny enough to do this, and then you gotta show that there’s ever any public mod response to it at all. I submit that nobody except you is whiny enough to do so.
What happens all the time is the first step: poster gets misquoted in quotation marks. You’ve seen half a dozen examples from the past week. What’s the difference between those cases and yours? The posters in question didn’t throw a hissy fit.
AND–another epic battle comes to an end! By unanimous decision of all the Mods–a clear knockout for the undefeated cham-peen, **Marley23 **, who extends his knockout record to 1,546 to zero losses. Would someone scrape that goddamned salamander off the canvas?
