That was the exact antecedent.
No it wasn’t. Bob was talking about “raising the minimum wage” – he was the first to bring it up.
In any case, what better verbiage are you suggesting that LHOD should have used in the (explicitly allowed) square-bracketed clarification for SA’s “that”?
OK, then delete Bob’s first phrase:
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!!!
The problem with adding phrasing from another poster is that you can carry over editorial comments from the other poster that that the poster you are quoting does not share. That might have been the case in what LHoD did. As I said earlier, my first assumption on reading the quote was that those bracketed words were something SA had posted earlier. But they were not.
In this case, the context makes clear that the true referent of Bob’s “that” is just [raising the minimum wage]. Charlie is exploiting the fact that the structure of Andy’s sentence means that the referent of Bob’s “that” could, in a technical grammatical sense only (i.e. without context), be the extended [raising the minimum wage for a bunch of losers]. There seems no doubt that Charile is doing this in bad faith to mock Bob’s comment within the quote box, and imo this would warrant a mod note or warning under the rules.
You have helpfully shown us what would have been a rules violation, and clarified the difference between a hypothetical rules violation and what LHoD actually did.
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.
Starving Artist:
My opinion is that most of that is just an act.
Please explain what conceivable referent of SA’s “that” there can be here other than what LHoD stated the referent to be, “Trump being an egotistical, self-aggrandizing narcissist”? If you read it carefully, there is be no ambiguity whatsoever about the referent. LHoD simply reports the referent objectively and accurately with square brackets in the conventional and appropriate manner inside the quote box; then gives his own subjective commentary afterwards outside the quote box.
I can’t explain it any better. If it doesn’t make sense to you, then it doesn’t make sense to you. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. At this point, I’m happy to go with whatever the mods decide. If they think my concern is of no consequence, so be it. Time will tell.
I agree with John Mace, both quotes should have been presented, not the two combined into one. The worst part here is that LHoD combined two quotes from two different posters. That’s plainly never done.
The rules are clear, statements by other posters are to be quoted in their pristine form. This is something the mods have been harping on for awhile now so everyone who regularly posted here should have known. This is not the first recent warning of this kind for this action.
I’m sorry LHoD, what you did was lazy and inappropriate … you should apologize to the two posters you’ve offended and to the moderator who you’ve disrupted. And never do this again.
It is not a logical inference that there exists a better explanation of your opinion.
It doesn’t.
That’s also plainly not forbidden by the rules: clarifying brackets are clearly allowed. If this is a new rule, an exception to the exception, that needs to be made clear.
That is not the rule. Reread the rule, paying special attention to what is allowed. Do you know what an antecedent is?
As for laziness: :rolleyes:. It wasn’t laziness, it was my best attempt at putting the quote forward in a clear, readable, accurate fashion.
These are not the rules, if by “pristine” you are excluding ellipsis and the use of square brackets in accord with convention.
Let’s see. Using multi-quotes would have avoided a warning on your record. And you want me to believe you chose the smarter way to make a point, even though your way was modded? That modding should mean, at the very least, there’s a possibility you chose the wrong method of making a point.
Not if the modding was entirely because JC did not realize LHoD had literally quoted the antecedent of the pronoun. If that’s the case, it’s just a mistake in the mod’s part.
Then it would behoove JC to alert everyone that he interprets brackets in quotes in a manner at odds with the rules for the forum and style guides the world over.
Modded yes. But modded incorrectly. That’s not on LHoD, that’s on the mod that made the poor modding decision.
Time out!
-
It’s clear to me that LHoD wasn’t being intentionally bad in his actions.
-
It is also clear to me that his means of posting was unusual enough others that others - including me - were confused.
-
I will rescind the warning due to the above.
-
I will now go chase Pokémon with my 12 year old.
Commentary: While the rules may allow for the way LHoD handled the quote, it is a method rife with potential for mischief and is perhaps not best-practice for quoting. Given the confusion seen here it would have been easier on all to choose some other means of providing the quote. I could certainly see a path forward where other posters use this form of quoting to backdoor insult others and such may result in notes or sanctions.
Extra Credit: What I love about being here is that you guys can take something like this and turn it into an examination of the deeper parts of grammar. Well done!
Sorry for the delay in response. I had a busy day at work.
You seem to be implying that what LHoD wrote was analogous to doing something like using synonyms for “liar” in GD, to see just how far he could go into a grey area without crossing a line. In my opinion, that’s a complete misrepresentation. What LHoD wrote was entirely correct and consistent with both the letter and spirit of the SDMB rules, and also consistent with broader journalistic conventions outside of SDMB.
Well done, JC! Great job, Dope! Beers for everyone!
As I said, I would have use the multi-quote function. If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to use brackets, I might have used [Trump’s public persona]. That doesn’t carry the negative bias that the words from the other poster carried. I would not feel comfortable implying that SA would use the words from that other poster to describe Trump. I understand why LHoD thought what he was doing was OK. But sometimes you have to remember that not everyone thinks the way you do.
I follow this thread with interest as I can easily see myself doing what LHoD does. All of the posts were on the same page, and I think that few here would be misled about what SA’s position on the matter was. I think it’s also clear that LHoD was not acting like a gratuitous asshole.
Multi-quoting can be awkward at times when you have multiple posts across multiple pages.
My take is that the post should not have even received a mod note. I concede that it is debatable whether it was best practice (I think it was in that territory). But that’s never been the standard for handing out warnings. And the poster in question was clearly trying not to be a dick about it.
If the mods decide to keep the warning and raise the civility bar to the new level, I would appreciate additional elaboration and guidance. I could live with it. But I would perceive it as a significant change in board policy. (It’s more likely a mod error IMHO. Hey, it happens. Good to think these things through.)
Civility standards encourage a more pleasant board environment. But at some point they interfere with clear communication. The bracket option is there to promote such clarity. I don’t think LHoD maligned SA and I don’t think he was just getting in a dig. A reasonable reader would have wondered about what “that” referred to. So adding the brackets assisted in the fight against ignorance.
OK, I’m glad to see that warning rescinded. I agree with JC’s post in full (except I won’t be chasing Pokemon.)
Wow…
I wake up (I work nights), and somehow find myself at least tangentially involved in a board controversy. My take:
Of course, as the author of the post that LHoD quoted in his response to SA, I understand perfectly what LHoD meant. I see how it may have confused some.
I doubt that SA would think that LHoD was trying to ascribe my words to him (SA).
I disagree with the warning, and I also suggest that it be rescinded.