In the IMHO thread On the Attempted Conversion of My
Daughter To Christianity, Miller did significantly change my quote, changing the meaning. I did report it, however, since it would be a moderator complaint, I was not sure if I should post it here instead. It is not acceptable. That’s a lot of nerve from a moderator!
Post in question. And the slightly modified original quote.
Whether the mistake was intentional or not, it was made roughly an hour ago. Mods don’t moderate full time, and may just not have seen it.
Miller’s ok. It’s that damn lying son-of-a-bitch Coors you gotta watch out for.
The quote was change which is a no-no but I don’t think it changed the meaning at all.
He did change the quote, which is puzzling since Miller is one of the straightest people on this board, but he responded to your post as if it were the original.
In your original, you said “and a tough [edge case], I’m sure.”
Miller’s quote changed it to “but I don’t think it’s a tough [edge case] at all,” but then responded with:
That response makes more sense when addressing the original post rather than the edit.
In either case, it appears to be a small change, and not all that significant as claimed.
Huh?
The original said:
The altered quote said:
It seems to me that “a tough one, I’m sure” and “I don’t think it’s a tough one at all” are about as opposite in meaning as it’s possible to get.
When the “no altering quotes” rule was much younger, i got dragged on the carpet for violating it to make a point, and it’s been made very clear to us, over a period of years now, that this is one area of the SDMB rules where there will be almost no leeway whatsoever.
I think Miller’s a good guy, and a good mod, but i’m rather intrigued as to how this misquotation happened.
I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate. What would be the point? The change would certainly engender a complaint, as indeed it has. My money’s on inadvertent.
<spit-take>
I think the OP has a valid point.
Why would a mod not only change the text of a quote, but change it so that its meaning is completely reversed?
Also, I have seen the term, “here long enough to know better” used lately. I wonder will this be applied to Miller?
Why exactly would he do that?
That didn’t take long.
Sorry. Took a small sip.
You’re probably right, but i’d still be interested to know how it happened.
I’ve quoted people hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on this message board, and every time i do it, i either use the quote function or copy and paste the relevant text. The only way a change like this could happen inadvertently is if you type out the quotation “longhand” rather than using the quote function or pasting. I’m not sure why on earth anyone would even do it that way.
It’s possible he got confused about where he was editing. Happens to me sometimes (rarely). Given the context of his own post, it sounds like “I don’t think it’s a tough one at all” would have been something he’d write, and it may have just overwritten the quote by accident.
Huh? How does going from the original:
- It would indeed be an edge case, and a tough one, I’m sure. *
to the altered:
It is an edge case, but I don’t think it’s a tough one at all.
not completely change the meaning of the statement? ** OldnCrinkly** says it would be a tough decision. Miller’s change makes it appear that OldnCrinkly said it would not be a tough decision. That completely changes the meaning of her statement.
I believe the meaning was completely changed. I do not think it was an accident. I could see that being the case if he changed only the end and went to correct it. He did not, he also removed the word “indeed” from the middle of my sentence.
It does, but not in a way that supports Miller’s line of questioning at all. In fact, Miller asks Old why it is so tough. So why shoot yourself in the foot like that?
Now, if the original had said “I don’t think it’s a very tough case” and Miller had changed it to “Which I think is a very tough edge case”, only to reply to this fake post by saying “why do you think it’s so tough”, THEN that would look pretty intentional. But that’s basically the opposite of what happened.
Yet he responded to the quote as if it were what you actually had written before it was changed.
There’s no evidence of malevolent intent here.
Given that Miller responded to the quote as it was originally written, and not as it was rewritten, I think it’s pretty clearly an accidental edit.
[QUOTE=original]
That’s an edge case, and a tough one.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=modified]
It is an edge case, but I don’t think it’s tough at all.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m also curious as to what you think is so “tough” about that particular situation. It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
[/QUOTE]
There’s no advantage in changing someone’s quote to reflect the opposite meaning, if you’re then going to argue about why it should be the opposite meaning. That just makes you look crazy. I’m guessing he started writing in the quote box, didn’t realize it, and then wrote his response out not noticing the changed text.
That said, he should be fired and then banned.
I agree it was most likely an accident with no ill intent. I was only addressing the notion that the meaning didn’t change, when I think it clearly did.
My bad. I misread the changed quote. My apologies. Also reading what Giraffe wrote is how I saw Millers response which probably helped in my misreading of the changed quote.
Again sorry.
My best guess is that he thought he was in a different part of the text-entry box, and accidentally put what was meant to be part of his reply in between the quote tags.