# 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:** 4
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/61 "2016-07-22T17:22:04Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As has been pointed LHoD, the wise way for you to have done this would have been to used multi-quote to make the point and avoided the appearance (possibility) of rule breaking. Adding anything to a quote, even in brackets, should raise red flags and be sufficient for someone to look for a permissible way to avoid the problem. But the rule that has been quoted explicitly allows square brackets for clarification. **LHOD** followed that rule exactly. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/62 "2016-07-22T17:25:54Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As has been pointed LHoD, the wise way for you to have done this would have been to used multi-quote to make the point and avoided the appearance (possibility) of rule breaking. And as I’ve pointed out, I think that multi-quote would have been less readable. I agree it’s an alternate solution. It’s one I find stylistically inferior. > [@](#): > > Adding anything to a quote, even in brackets, should raise red flags No it shouldn’t. The rules explicitly allow adding certain things to a quote in brackets. Why should adding those things to a quote in brackets raise red flags? Morgenstern, at this point I’m aware we’re talking at cross-purposes. Let me ask, are you clear on what a demonstrative pronoun is? On what an antecedent is? Would a refresher course be helpful? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/63 "2016-07-22T17:26:04Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > … > (underlining mine, square brackets at QUOTE changed to {} for proper formatting in the quote) > This has been discussed time and time again. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697048&postcount=11](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697048&postcount=11) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But the rule that has been quoted explicitly allows square brackets for clarification. **LHOD** followed that rule exactly. More specifically, for clarifying the antecedent of the pronoun. He’s not extending the rule by the smallest, slightest iota. ---
**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, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/64 "2016-07-22T17:35:25Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As has been pointed LHoD, the wise way for you to have done this would have been to used multi-quote to make the point and avoided the appearance (possibility) of rule breaking. Adding anything to a quote, even in brackets, should raise red flags and be sufficient for someone to look for a permissible way to avoid the problem. I disagree that a multi-quote would be better. But more importantly, I disagree with the notion of a guy complying with the letter and spirit of the rules and then being faulted because “the wise way” to have done it was something else. If you can’t make a case on its own merits that this was some sort of violation, then suggesting that alternatives might have been wiser does not create one. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/65 "2016-07-22T17:36:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As has been pointed LHoD, the wise way for you to have done this would have been to used multi-quote to make the point and avoided the appearance (possibility) of rule breaking. Adding anything to a quote, even in brackets, should raise red flags and be sufficient for someone to look for a permissible way to avoid the problem. I disagree entirely. There’s nothing wrong with using the multiquote for continuity but interpolations in quotes are and have always been acceptable, as long as they are set aside through brackets.\* And indeed, multiquoting has its own dangers as one could use multiquote to set two disparate quotes next to each other to give the appearance of continuity when the writers intended no such thing. \*I mean this mostly in the real world and not the dope’s bizarro world of quote box violations, but even here, it has been acceptable in the past to use brackets to add clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/66 "2016-07-22T17:42:04Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As has been pointed LHoD, the wise way for you to have done this would have been to used multi-quote to make the point and avoided the appearance (possibility) of rule breaking. Adding anything to a quote, even in brackets, should raise red flags and be sufficient for someone to look for a permissible way to avoid the problem. I couldn’t disagree more. What **LHoD** did is a textbook example of how square brackets in quotes _should_ be used, and the warning is ridiculous. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/67 "2016-07-22T17:58:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Morgenstern, at this point I’m aware we’re talking at cross-purposes. Let me ask, are you clear on what a demonstrative pronoun is? On what an antecedent is? Would a refresher course be helpful? Shit, a refresher course might be helpful to **me**. I realized as I was driving home just now that I’ve been using “relative pronoun” and “demonstrative pronoun” interchangeably, which they decidedly are not. “That” can be both, but in this case, it was a demonstrative pronoun. My apologies for any confusion. For those who want a refresher course from someone clearly more qualified than me, [here you go](http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/pronouns/what-is-a-demonstrative-pronoun.html). ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/68 "2016-07-22T18:10:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Morgenstern, at this point I’m aware we’re talking at cross-purposes. Yes, I think so too. While I certainly don’t speak for him, or endorse his interpretation, I understand him to be saying that the portion of the rule that forbids the insertion of editorial content, namely, “but you may not add editorial comments,” means that if the referent of the pronoun in question is itself editorial commentary, it may not be added to the quoted material, and consequently, clarification is disallowed. I think this is a coherent, but not likely to be commonly shared, reading of the rule, and I doubt very much that it was the intent of **C K Dexter Haven** to disallow such when he wrote that. I think that pretty clearly the rule is meant instead to prohibit the one doing the quoting from editorializing, which can best be done by quoting the referent verbatim, just as was done in the example under discussion. Offered merely because a number of folks seem to be talking past each other at this point. ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/69 "2016-07-22T18:12:25Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > The changed quote clearly made it appear that Starving Artist either said the words himself or agreed with the sentiment regarding Trump, thats how I read it when I saw it first. Here’s what Superdude said, and SA quoted. > [@The Republican national Convention](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-national-convention/757729/1252): > > 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. Here’s what SA said in response to that quote: > [@The Republican national Convention](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-national-convention/757729/1255): > > My opinion is that most of that is just an act. Now that you’ve read up on demonstrative pronouns, what do you believe is the antecedent to the word “that”? I see a few possibilities: 1. The whole statement. SA believes that it’s just an act that Superdude wants to believe that Trump is setting up Ivanka for politics–Superdude doesn’t really believe that. 2. Superdude’s inability to see Trump as being altruistic: SA thinks Superdude is just acting like he can’t see Trump that way. 3. Trump’s being an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist. SA thinks that’s mostly just an act. 4. Something else that I haven’t thought of. #3 is far and away the likeliest antecedent, to the degree that the others are absurd readings of the text IMO. Do you see a different antecedent? It’s not enough just to say I’m wrong, if you don’t see an antecedent yourself. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/70 "2016-07-22T18:17:25Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > Yes, I think so too. While I certainly don’t speak for him, or endorse his interpretation, I understand him to be saying that the portion of the rule that forbids the insertion of editorial content, namely, “but you may not add editorial comments,” means that if the referent of the pronoun in question is itself editorial commentary, it may not be added to the quoted material, and consequently, clarification is disallowed. In post 52, everywhere I wrote “opinion,” I’d originally written “editorial comment.” I changed that because of the confusion it would generate. An opinion and an editorial comment are not the same thing. When someone expresses an opinion in a post, that’s not necessarily an editorial comment. Consider Larry, who writes, “Peaches are the nastiest fruit in the world.” Velma responds, “That is the opinion of a philistine.” Bob quotes Velma: > [@Velma](#): > > That [that peaches are nasty] is the opinion of a philistine Bob included the opinion, but made no editorial comment. Charlotte quotes Velma: > [@Velma](#): > > That is the opinion of a philistine [says the moron who won’t eat blackberries] Charlotte has included an editorial comment. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/71 "2016-07-22T18:21:04Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > An opinion and an editorial comment are not the same thing. When someone expresses an opinion in a post, that’s not necessarily an editorial comment. I fully agree. I was just explaining what I understood **Morgenstern** to be saying because there seemed to be some confusion. You and him go fight. 🙂 ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/72 "2016-07-22T18:29:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But the rule that has been quoted explicitly allows square brackets for clarification. **LHOD** followed that rule exactly. Where does the rule say you can add brackets to a person’s post that contain wording from a another poster? Are you seriously not seeing how this could cause problems if it were considered OK to do going forward? ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/73 "2016-07-22T18:34:15Z")
For those who are struggling with reading comprehension or basic logic, thie hypothetical sequence below is precisely logically identical. Do you think the sequence below violates any rules? * * * At comment #1251 **Hypothetical Superdude** says: Donald Trump has blue eyes. * * * At comment #1254 **Hypothetical Starving Artist** says: [QUOTE=Hypothetical Superdude] Donald Trump has blue eyes. [/QUOTE] That is not true, I think he has green eyes and wears blue contact lenses. * * * At comment #1277 **Hypothetical LHoD** says: [QUOTE=Hypothetical Starving Artist] That [Donald Trump having blue eyes] is not true, I think he has green eyes and wears blue contact lenses. [/QUOTE] [clarification added] Why would Donald pretend that his eyes are blue when they are really green? * * * ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/74 "2016-07-22T18:36:27Z")
Just another terrible decision by a mod w/ a long string of terrible mod decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/75 "2016-07-22T18:36:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where does the rule say you can add brackets to a person’s post that contain wording from a another poster? Are you seriously not seeing how this could cause problems if it were considered OK to do going forward? I have no problems at all with the idea that it is acceptable to replace a pronoun in a quote, through brackets, with that pronoun’s antecedent. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/76 "2016-07-22T18:37:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where does the rule say you can add brackets to a person’s post that contain wording from a another poster? Are you seriously not seeing how this could cause problems if it were considered OK to do going forward? Bracketed clarification used in that fashion is for the antecedent to pronouns like “that”. How else could **LHOD** have used this explicitly allowed rule to clarify what **SA** was referring to by “that”, aside from using the exact language from the post he responded to? For example (using {} to indicate quote blocks): Andy: I support raising the minimum wage. Bob: {Andy: I support raising the minimum wage} I think that is a bad idea. Charlie: {Bob: I think that [raising the minimum wage] is a bad idea} Why do you think it’s a bad idea? This is explicitly what the rule allows. It doesn’t matter if who made the 1st post – the 3rd poster can and should quote it exactly, at least per common usage for square-bracketed clarification. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/77 "2016-07-22T18:51:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where does the rule say you can add brackets to a person’s post that contain wording from a another poster? Are you seriously not seeing how this could cause problems if it were considered OK to do going forward? You’re focusing on the wording from another poster, but that’s not the salient point. It doesn’t matter if it’s from another poster, or a brand new phrasing as long as it adds clarity and is not editorial in nature. The fact that it was the exact language from the antecedent bolsters the point. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/78 "2016-07-22T19:10:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bracketed clarification used in that fashion is for the antecedent to pronouns like “that”. How else could **LHOD** have used this explicitly allowed rule to clarify what **SA** was referring to by “that”, aside from using the exact language from the post he responded to? > > For example (using {} to indicate quote blocks): > > Andy: I support raising the minimum wage. > Bob: {Andy: I support raising the minimum wage} I think that is a bad idea. > Charlie: {Bob: I think that [raising the minimum wage] is a bad idea} Why do you think it’s a bad idea? > > This is explicitly what the rule allows. It doesn’t matter if who made the 1st post – the 3rd poster can and should quote it exactly, at least per common usage for square-bracketed clarification. Bob: We need to raise the minimum wage Andy: Raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers is a bad idea. Bob: I disagree. That is the best way to fight poverty. Charlie: {Bob: That [raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers] is a good way to fight poverty} Why do you think that is a good way to fight poverty? Bob: I never said they were a bunch of losers!!! ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/79 "2016-07-22T19:13:42Z")
Well, if you’re not going to take this seriously, I don’t see much point in talking to you about it. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/80 "2016-07-22T19:16:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bob: We need to raise the minimum wage > Andy: Raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers is a bad idea. > Bob: I disagree. That is the best way to fight poverty. > Charlie: {Bob: That [raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers] is a good way to fight poverty} Why do you think that is a good way to fight poverty? > Bob: I never said they were a bunch of losers!!! But that’s an inaccurate antecedent. **LHOD** used the exact antecedent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585.md?page=5)