# "Misquoting" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 24, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395 "2006-01-24T15:31:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/21 "2006-01-24T22:02:55Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Here’s the background: the whole time I was witnessing the Excalibre/brightpenny debacle, I was thinking of the time that squid doctor visited GQ and immediately got snarked upon. And I was thinking, wouldn’t it be nice if GQ had higher standards of behavior? Wouldn’t it be nice if newbies and visiting scientists didn’t have to undergo the kind of hazing that’s perfectly accepted there? Wouldn’t GQ be a much more valuable venue if it DID have the standards of academic publication? At least the standards of tone and discourse? This while reading page after page of Excalibre (and of course others) fighting for their right to be rude. Gosh, yeah, I’m _all_ about turning this place into a seething mass of anger and bitterness. You can tell, because that’s _exactly_ what I argued for. You gonna address the fact that your implication that I posted something rude to **brightpenny** is a complete fabrication? > [@](#): > > Then to come here and see Excalibre arguing for the standards of academic publication struck me as hypocritical. That’s all. I suppose I should’ve written a 500 word post with all the background necessary to put my comment in context. Well, it doesn’t strike anyone else as hypocritical, apparently. Even if you did bring in irrelevant baggage from another thread. Incidentally, even if I _was_ an incurable dick in GQ all the time, what would that have to do with suggesting that maybe it’s not such a terrible idea that some standards of basic honesty - that is, using quotes properly - be enforced? You seem to have read a whole lot more into my first post than was intended. I think that maintaining the same essential standards for quoting as are used virtually everywhere else makes sense, since it’s easier than trying to create some whole new set of rules from scratch. You’re welcome to argue against that, but your ad hominems are not that convincing. By the way, strained tolerance has given way to antipathy. Congrats. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/22 "2006-01-24T22:04:03Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > You gonna address the fact that your implication that I posted something rude to **brightpenny** is a complete fabrication? (In GQ, that is.) ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/23 "2006-01-24T22:45:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Has that **ever** worked for you? I mean, I know that you sometimes write those treatises, but when was the last time you wrote one and had people say, “Gee, I see where you’re coming from now”? > > Far better, I think, to develop a knack of saying, “Sorry, posted before I thought,” and back away when you say something indefensible. > > Daniel whoosh ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/24 "2006-01-24T22:46:58Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > You might have a good point. I have seen GQ & GD cases where some posters are remarkably rude to new posters. I find it especially embarrassing when they are rude to Poster from outside the US, Canada & UK. > I think Excalibre did hold the bulk of his rudeness for the pit where it belonged however. Maybe I am wrong on that part. > > Jim Yes he did, but that pit thread was largely about sucking it if you don’t like snark in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/25 "2006-01-24T22:48:53Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > (In GQ, that is.) I never meant to suggest you were rude to brightpenny in GQ, only that you supported the right of others to be rude to brightpenny in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/26 "2006-01-24T22:53:45Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I never meant to suggest you were rude to brightpenny in GQ, only that you supported the right of others to be rude to brightpenny in GQ. Gosh, you’re right. Because it’s not like you said, “If you want to kick brightpenny around in a GQ snarkfest, ‘academic standards’ are the furthest thing from your mind.” Which besides being a non sequitur, suggests that I kicked around **brightpenny** in a GQ “snarkfest”. Incidentally, while her treatment in that thread was anything but a “snarkfest”, that’s not what I pitted her for. **lissener** , I do believe your pants are on fire. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/27 "2006-01-24T23:07:59Z")
Here’s the sequence: I mildly snarked at roger thornhill for suggesting that a comedian’s misunderstanding of the standards of scientific notation and publication should negate most of the history of science. I did so by using square brackets in a way that I (and Patty O’Furniture and I’m sure most people IRL) thought was proper and clear, to suggest that roger’s post was devoid of sense. samclem informed me that my understanding of square bracket usage in GQ was mistaken. Excalibre uses his understanding of academic publication standards to go “me too” to samclem’s admonition. I’m struck by how far from the standards of academic publication Excalibre was recently when arguing for acceptable levels of rudeness in GQ. Now, granted, that’s a bit of a hijack: I did not address Excalibre’s specific points about square brackets; I only addressed his choice of justification–i.e., standards of academic publication. It seemed to me that subjecting newcomers to a gauntlet of rudeness was a far greater infraction of any such standards than any misuse of brackets that I might have perpetrated. I apologize for the hijack. I think it’s a worthy discussion, but it’s clearly not the intended subject of this thread. I also apologize–again–for any confusion caused by my use of brackets. In future I will clearly label editorial insertions as editorial insertions, if I use them at all. I agree with Patty, which is why I didn’t provide such a label in the first place. I’d’ve assumed it would be redundant and unnecessary. Clearly I was wrong. I meant only to point out how ignorant and ludicrous was roger thornhill’s objection to the use of drawings in scientific publications. I should certainly have done so more explicitly. It’s unfortunate that my use of brackets has entirely eclipsed the original subject, but you’d think I’d be used to that by now. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/28 "2006-01-24T23:11:30Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Gosh, you’re right. Because it’s not like you said, “If you want to kick brightpenny around in a GQ snarkfest, ‘academic standards’ are the furthest thing from your mind.” Which besides being a non sequitur, suggests that I kicked around **brightpenny** in a GQ “snarkfest”. Incidentally, while her treatment in that thread was anything but a “snarkfest”, that’s not what I pitted her for. > > **lissener** , I do believe your pants are on fire. Sorry, again unclear. When I said “if you want to,” I was referring to your argument that you wanted the right to do so, not that you had. Very badly put. And again badly put: though I know that was not the intent of your OP, that thread became, to a great extent, a referendum on the limits of rudeness in GQ. You seemed largely to be on the side that was all for it, which is all I meant to address. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/29 "2006-01-24T23:11:55Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Here’s the background: the whole time I was witnessing > > [\*] Witnessing belongs in GD. - original context deleted ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/30 "2006-01-24T23:24:22Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Sorry, again unclear. When I said “if you want to,” I was referring to your argument that you wanted the right to do so, not that you had. Very badly put. And again badly put: though I know that was not the intent of your OP, that thread became, to a great extent, a referendum on the limits of rudeness in GQ. You seemed largely to be on the side that was all for it, which is all I meant to address. I’m on the side of not losing your shit and announcing your plans to stalk off the boards forever because a couple people are very, very slightly sarcastic to you. What that has to do with an issue that fundamentally revolves around honesty is rather a puzzle to me. There’s a rule here against misusing quote boxes in the manner you did - I know because I’ve run afoul of it myself. And while I don’t think violating the rule should be a hanging infraction, I think it’s at least a reasonable rule. Like I said in my first post, “I’m not saying the rule ought to be exactly the same around here, but it does strike me as reasonable”. I indicated _from the beginning_ that I wasn’t even attempting to advance an argument either way. Interesting that you, of all people, should claim to be on the side of politeness. Especially given that my post resulted in an unprovoked attempt by you to bring up something totally irrelevant and continue a pile-on of me that ought to be over and done. If you had anything resembling class, **lissener** , it would be. It’s hardly the case, of course, that you’ve never gotten in trouble for being unbearably rude on this message board - your unprovoked attack on me in this thread is pretty mild, coming from you; you actually verge on rationality. Sadly, however, much of the time you have confined yourself neither to mildness nor rationality. But I suppose you mean your rule to apply to others, and not to 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:** [January 24, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/31 "2006-01-24T23:32:51Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > whoosh Not at all: you’re already getting into 500-word treatise territory. The fact that you thought it counted as self-deprecating humor doesn’t mean that you’ve learned your lesson. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_You_Big_Red_Fire_Engine)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/32 "2006-01-24T23:36:39Z")
> [@Silver Fire](#): > > From Giraffe, in a [pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6663859&postcount=11) on this very subject from a little over three months ago: > > According to Giraffe, lissener was well within the rules. > > I don’t personally see anything wrong with the second example, either. I don’t believe that Giraffe is a good authority to go to on this. He is the newest mod (I think?), and in that pit thread, he was only making excuses for his own stupid mistake. [A much more decisive thread on the topic.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=309771) > [@Dex](#): > > An editorial comment like \< drivel deleted \> is rude and insulting, and so may be used in the Pit but probably not elsewhere, although I suppose it depends on the context, to some extent. > [@Tuba Diva](#): > > In fact, it’s not a good thing to do, not even in the Pit, which is where people can be more disputational, that’s the point of the forum in large part, but that sort of thing extends towards abuse, and that’s right out. \ > Quotes should mention only the cite or site or point that needs to be made, without twisting or altering the original statement or intent and without editorializing or passing judgment on the material being quoted. > Removal of text should be indicated with \ or . . . to show that material has been taken away from the original statement. Do not use this to change the meaning of an original statement. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/33 "2006-01-24T23:39:28Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Sadly, however, much of the time you have confined yourself neither to mildness nor rationality. But I suppose you mean your rule to apply to others, and not to yourself? That would make him…what’s that word? > [@lissener](#): > > …hypocritical… That’s the one. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/34 "2006-01-24T23:43:23Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > I don’t believe that Giraffe is a good authority to go to on this. He is the newest mod (I think?), and in that pit thread, he was only making excuses for his own stupid mistake. > > [A much more decisive thread on the topic.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=309771) Thanks; I was not aware of those. Noted. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/35 "2006-01-24T23:45:32Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Interesting that you, of all people, should claim to be on the side of politeness. I have only ever argued for higher standards for GQ. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/36 "2006-01-24T23:48:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Not at all: you’re already getting into 500-word treatise territory. The fact that you thought it counted as self-deprecating humor doesn’t mean that you’ve learned your lesson. > > Daniel Ah. The preemptive “if you participate in this thread any more you’re irrational” gambit. Last one in the swimmin hole’s a rotten egg! Thanks for defining the terms of the debate for us, Dan. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/37 "2006-01-25T00:06:09Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > That would make him…what’s that word? > > That’s the one. Look. I wish that GQ had a more grownup tone. I wish that posting a non-responsive response to a direct, factual question was against GQ rules. I wish that posting uninformed opinions was frowned upon, and that jokey non-responses was subject to moderator warning. I wish that potential future contributors to this board, who often enter first through GQ, weren’t subjected to an administration-condoned (at least connived at) hazing. I wish that the GQ forum was sophisticated enough that it could be considered a relatively valid cite for information seekers. It has the potential to out-Wikipedia Wikipedia. But that’s not the way things are, my wishes notwithstanding. If it were, I’d probably be more disciplined in posting there myself. If that makes me a hypocrit, well then whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/38 "2006-01-25T00:07:56Z")
I have to say that I’ve rather been enjoying the new and improved **lissener** (despite his apparent decision to abandon the custom of bolding user names). There’s just as much if not greater intelligence on display, along with more compassion and less bitterness. I’ve actually been clicking on threads to see what **lissener** has to say about this subject or that, which hasn’t been the case in the past. I’m posting this for whatever encouraging effect it may have (though I doubt **lissener** will be much comforted by the idea of support from **SA** 😛 ) as I’m somewhat afraid that this thread may lead to a relapse, which I for one would hate to see happen. Good on ya, **lissener**. I hope you stick with the new you, it becomes you well. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/39 "2006-01-25T00:21:12Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > I am certain I’ve seen an editor’s remark placed inside square brackets to comment on something the author has written just before a book or column goes to press. But I’ve also seen it used to correct misspellings and/or explain something that is missing from the quoted text, for example, let’s say we have a text reading: > [@](#): > > Martin Luther King, Jr. was a famous civil rights leader. His most famous speech was “I Had A Dream.” We may then quote this as: > [@](#): > > As Hanlon wrote, "[King’s] most famous speech was “I Had A Dream [sic].” This both shows us that the “he” is Dr. King, since the sentence that identified him is not reproduced, and that we realize Hanlon made a mistake in the name of the speech. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395/40 "2006-01-25T00:21:14Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Look. I wish that GQ had a more grownup tone. I wish that posting a non-responsive response to a direct, factual question was against GQ rules. I wish that posting uninformed opinions was frowned upon, and that jokey non-responses was subject to moderator warning. I wish that potential future contributors to this board, who often enter first through GQ, weren’t subjected to an administration-condoned (at least connived at) hazing. I wish that the GQ forum was sophisticated enough that it could be considered a relatively valid cite for information seekers. It has the potential to out-Wikipedia Wikipedia. > > But that’s not the way things are, my wishes notwithstanding. It is the way it is that I have ever been able to tell. Maybe not out-Wikipedia-ing the Wikipedia but that’s an issue of it being a 1000 page BBS forum while as the Wikipedia is a wiki. But everything else is, and even if not due to the mods properly preserving it, still because most people want it to be that way and they self-censor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misquoting/341395.md?page=3)