# Jonathan Chance's warning of LHoD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 22, 2016, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585 "2016-07-22T13:01:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/21 "2016-07-22T14:09:51Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > That said, I’m not sure LHoD’s usage was within the rule, although he made an attempt to fit it there. Was he \*clarifying or adding \*an editorial comment? One would fit, the other would not. The “that” in **Starving Artist** ’s comment explicitly referred to this prior comment that was quoted by **Starving Artist** : [QUOTE=Superdude] Part of me wants to believe that. But he’s such an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist that I can’t see him being altruistic, even for his family. [/QUOTE] In quoting **Starving Artist** , LHoD said in the square brackets that the “that” in the quote referred to: “[Trump being an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist]” Perhaps the confusion is created by the fact that **Superdude** ’s comment, to which “that” referred, was itself pejorative toward Trump. But the content of **LHoD** ’s square brackets was a precisely correct, non-pejorative, non-editorialized statement of what the “that” in Starving Artists’s comment referred to. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/22 "2016-07-22T14:11:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps “[Trump’s public persona]” would have been a better choice to use. I think it would have been a worse choice. Because his entire point is that with regards to being a “egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist” you can’t distinguish the persona from the person - if that’s your persona then that’s what you are. That point was made clearer by observing that SA’s claim was that “egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist” was a persona and not real. There are other personas that could be just personas, and saying “[Trump’s public persona]” would fail to make the point, which was specific to “egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist”. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/23 "2016-07-22T14:13:32Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > …My point of view was the LHoD was changing the quote to make it appear that SA was agreeing with the negative characterization of Trump. But I’m willing to see what the others say… If that’s the case, I think you’ve simply misread it. There’s no possible way I can see to get that impression. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/24 "2016-07-22T14:16:45Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Perhaps, although that changes the actual original quote that **SA** was referring to. The original bracket by **LHoD** left the original wording untouched. However, even if you’re right stylistically, it would seem to warrant a mod note more than a warning. > > Not difficult at all! I use it in this very post. However, the other method seems to be explicitly allowed in the rules. > [@Riemann](#): > > The “that” in **Starving Artist** ’s comment explicitly referred to this prior comment that was quoted by **Starving Artist** : > > In quoting **Starving Artist** , LHoD said in the square brackets that the “that” in the quote referred to: > > “[Trump being an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist]” > > Perhaps the confusion is created by the fact that **Superdude** ’s comment, to which “that” referred, was itself pejorative toward Trump. But the content of **LHoD** ’s square brackets was a precisely correct, non-pejorative, non-editorialized statement of what the “that” in Starving Artists’s comment referred to. I think we’ve all quoted a post and commented on it without necessarily agreeing with it 100%. Given that there are many other ways to do what needs to be done, I’d say putting one poster’s words into another person’s post should be against the rules. He could have put [refer to post XXX] in there, for instance. Or, use the multi-post function as noted earlier. Without going back to check, the reader has no way of knowing where those words came from. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/25 "2016-07-22T14:16:56Z")
Yeah–that was definitely not my intention, and I don’t see how it can clearly be read that way. My intention was to make the conversation easier to follow, putting the antecedent of “that” in brackets for clarity. I tried to make it as close to the original as possible while maintaining grammatical structure. There was absolutely no attempt at editorializing, or at putting words in SA’s mouth. My warning states: > [@](#): > > You should know that altering anything in quote boxes is a warnable offense. I disagree. I know that altering things by using normal editorial rules is acceptable, and as near as I can tell, that’s what I did. John, sure, I could have used multiquote. But that would have been a little clunkier to read, and in any case, the use of brackets to clarify the antecedent of a pronoun is commonly-accepted usage. What I’d like to come out of this is a clear statement by mods that this usage will not be dinged going forward. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/26 "2016-07-22T14:19:12Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If that’s the case, I think you’ve simply misread it. There’s no possible way I can see to get that impression. I agree – **LHOD** used the _exact text_ of the quote **SA** was responding to to clarify inside the square brackets. I don’t see how **LHOD** could possibly have done any better of demonstrating the explicitly allowed use of square brackets both per the quoted rules and Ed’s clarification. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/27 "2016-07-22T14:20:21Z")
I’ll also add that the language **Jonathan Chance** used in his Warning leads me to suspect that he was unaware of the allowance within the rules for square-bracketed clarifications. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/28 "2016-07-22T14:22:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Wow. I am gobsmacked. I was genuinely trying to follow the rule here; there’s nothing unclear about what I did; I explained that it was an attempt at clarification; I was not editorializing. While there are other pathways to doing it, I really don’t see this as outside the rules, given the rules about how quotes may be altered (i.e., with non-editorializing brackets). How can you be certain that **SA** would actually use those words himself? How am I, as a reader, supposed to know that **SA** did not use those exact words? I agree that it was an honest mistake, and a mod note is more appropriate. But, going forward, I don’t think we need to muddy the waters and make what is supposed to be a hard a fast rule more of a loosey-goosey one. I can see that only leading to more confusion about what is OK and what is not OK. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/29 "2016-07-22T14:23:54Z")
For reference, the relevant comments in that thread are #1251 #1254 #1277 #1279 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/30 "2016-07-22T14:25:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How can you be certain that **SA** would actually use those words himself? How am I, as a reader, supposed to know that **SA** did not use those exact words? > > I agree that it was an honest mistake, and a mod note is more appropriate. But, going forward, I don’t think we need to muddy the waters and make what is supposed to be a hard a fast rule more of a loosey-goosey one. I can see that only leading to more confusion about what is OK and what is not OK. I think you’re being silly – the square-bracketed clarifications are explicitly allowed in the rules, and using the exact text from the post that **SA** was responding to seems like the most obvious and clear way of using a square-bracket clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/31 "2016-07-22T14:28:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How am I, as a reader, supposed to know that **SA** did not use those exact words? Because they’re in square brackets. That means \*explicitly \*that he didn’t use those exact words. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/32 "2016-07-22T14:30:50Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Because they’re in square brackets. That means \*explicitly \*that he didn’t use those exact words. Not really. They could have been from an earlier post of his. That is what I would have assumed. But if what you say is true, then they absolutely should NOT be there. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/33 "2016-07-22T14:31:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I agree that it was an honest mistake, and a mod note is more appropriate. But, going forward, I don’t think we need to muddy the waters and make what is supposed to be a hard a fast rule more of a loosey-goosey one. I can see that only leading to more confusion about what is OK and what is not OK. I disagree. I think that if the “that” in **Starving Artist** ’s comment had referred to a cute kitten, and **LHoD** had stated within square brackets that it referred to a cute kitten, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact is, the “that” in **Starving Artist** ’s comment referred to a pejorative statement about Trump that had earlier been made by **Superdude**. But it did so explicitly and unambiguously ( **Starving Artist** quoted **Superdude** when making his comment), and **LHoD** accurately stated (verbatim except for changing tense) what “that” referred to, with no editorializing, and no attempt to assign any unstated beliefs or motivations to any party in the matter. There’s no difference in principle at all. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/34 "2016-07-22T14:31:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How can you be certain that **SA** would actually use those words himself? How am I, as a reader, supposed to know that **SA** did not use those exact words? Second question first: you know that because that’s what brackets tell you. First question, then: SA used a pronoun. Pronouns have antecedents. In this case, what do you think the antecedent to “that” was? It’s very clearly the bit of the previous quote that he posted. He wasn’t agreeing with it; he was saying that it was a false perception caused by an act. How would you know that he wasn’t agreeing with it? BECAUSE THE STUFF I QUOTED FROM HIM SAID SO! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/35 "2016-07-22T14:35:58Z")
Let’s be clear about something-- there are two issues at play here. 1. Should **LHoD** be given a warning for what he did. (I don’t think so.) 2. Should we make it OK, going forward, to insert one poster’s words into another person’s post as “a point of clarification”. (I think not, for the reason stated-- we don’t really know that the poster would have used those words himself, and there are easy, alternative ways of getting that clarification across.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/36 "2016-07-22T14:37:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 1. Should we make it OK, going forward, to insert one poster’s words into another person’s post as “a point of clarification”. (I think not, for the reason stated-- we don’t really know that the poster would have used those words himself, and there are easy, alternative ways of getting that clarification across.) You seriously think that SA would have used different words to describe the point **he was disagreeing with**? The persona **that he was saying was an act**? Why on earth do you think he would have used different, less accurate words to describe the antecedent of his pronoun? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/37 "2016-07-22T14:38:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s be clear about something-- there are two issues at play here. > > 1. Should **LHoD** be given a warning for what he did. (I don’t think so.) > > 2. Should we make it OK, going forward, to insert one poster’s words into another person’s post as “a point of clarification”. (I think not, for the reason stated-- we don’t really know that the poster would have used those words himself, and there are easy, alternative ways of getting that clarification across.) I’m getting the impression that maybe you haven’t actually seen the relevant prior comments because you don’t seem to understand what actually happened. Just to make sure that this is not a discussion at cross purposes, please read these posts carefully in that thread: #1251 #1254 #1277 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/38 "2016-07-22T14:45:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s be clear about something-- there are two issues at play here. > > 1. Should **LHoD** be given a warning for what he did. (I don’t think so.) > > 2. Should we make it OK, going forward, to insert one poster’s words into another person’s post as “a point of clarification”. (I think not, for the reason stated-- we don’t really know that the poster would have used those words himself, and there are easy, alternative ways of getting that clarification across.) **SA** was responding to those exact words. That’s exactly how the square-bracketed clarification is described in the rule, and commonly used in print journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/39 "2016-07-22T14:49:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **SA** was responding to those exact words. That’s exactly how the square-bracketed clarification is described in the rule, and commonly used in print journalism. Yup, exactly correct. And we definitely should NOT adopt the policy that if quote X refers to quote Y, and quote Y happens to be something controversial, we must bowdlerize quote Y rather than state it accurately! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/40 "2016-07-22T15:07:25Z")
I’m with LHoD - it made it easier to read that way and it kept the vein of the subtopic clear. It was obviously not intended to nor did it seem like the quoted material was being altered. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585.md?page=3)