There are posters that I see here and elsewhere using this method for citing:
When one demands a cite in a debate the person that had the cite requested then posts a quote from a group or publication that has the effect of condemning the group or publication in the eyes of the members of the discussion, that is if the members of the discussion do not know how a blog or forum works.
This was seen recently when Lord Monckton (a known denier of humans being a factor in the current climate change) published a non peer reviewed post in a physicist forum. The post misleadingly reported that the majority of physicists denied the human factor in global warming, almost instantly many sites that oppose the current consensus pointed to the post as proof that the consensus was a lie and that all the global warming fears were going to be discredited.
Problem was when the forum owners found what was going on they marked the post as misleading and many bloggers had egg in their faces.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=476074&highlight=lord
Regardless who told the bloggers where or when the post was going up, is there a fallacy name for this act of searching for posts in blogs and forums of an opponent to get a post that misrepresents the opponent? Or something similar?
I could swear a Doper once posted a good definition or proposed a definition for such a fallacy, but I can not find who did it or what name the fallacy had.