Wasn’t that Ophelia’s father?
No, it’s found on the periodic table between the pierogi and the kielbasa.
That’s my reading as well, and until I saw your post I didn’t even realize there was another possible reading, so I was very confused by Honesty’s complaint. Honesty, if you’re still reading, would you mind responding to F-P’s post to clarify? It’s possible that this whole thing is an enormous misunderstanding, as Dissonance thought you meant what F-P said in the second quoted paragraph, whereas you actually meant what he said in the first paragraph.
Sure.
[QUOTE=FP]
In this particular case that would be my position.
Truth is that Honesty’s syntax in that post seemed to be somewhat garbled, and it’s hard to be sure what he was saying. But best as I can figure, his “for argument’s sake” was not “for argument’s sake let’s assume that the scientists were threatened by Israel”, which is what you seem to be saying. If he was saying that, then leaving out the “for argument’s sake” would fundamentally change the context of his words, because he was not genuinely demanding that anyone take seriously and need to rebut his speculation that the Israelis had threatened the scientists.
But best as I can figure, what he was saying was “for argument’s sake let’s assume that there really is a report by French scientists” (a matter on which Honesty was casting doubt) “then what evidence is there that this report is not the result of the Israelis threatening the scientists?”
Meaning that while the notion of Israelis threatening the scientists to produce the false report was only theoretical, it was only theoretical to the extent that Honesty did not believe that the report existed altogether. To the extent that such a report existed, Honesty was in fact saying that the idea that it was the result of Israeli threat was valid speculation, and put the burden on others to find evidence to disprove it.
To the extent that you don’t believe the logic worked that way, then it was perfectly legitimate to leave out the first sentence.
That said, as above, Honesty’s syntax was somewhat garbled, and his statement “let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes” doesn’t really parse well in the context of what he was saying. I think he meant what I said above, but you never know.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a matter of perspective, though my position is quite simple: I believe I should’ve been quoted in full and been allowed to argue that without moderator interference. The paragraph itself was me taking the Devil’s advocate position; I had, for example, defended the Swiss paper for over >250 posts at that time, why I suddenly backtrack and call “fraudulent”? But, for argument’s sake, let’s assume my syntax was garbled. Why wouldn’t one include the full portion of the quote especially if my syntax was ambiguous in meaning? Why remove further context from a paragraph that’s garbled? Also, do we assume that I was being fraudulent when I concurred six posts after that the original post that Israel was not responsible for Arafat’s death?
[QUOTE=Honesty]
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Yasser Arafat died of natural causes as outlined by the non-existent report by the French. What evidence is there that the scientists were not threatened by Israel or any other country to come up with a negative result? The French (and Russians) are so hungry to say that he died of natural causes, they’ve neglected to put out the corresponding data. Also, do we assume that the Swiss scientists are fraudulent?
[/QUOTE]
What frustrates me about the thread is even if I believed that “jew bankers” were behind Mr. Arafat’s death; I fail to see what my personal position has to do with two teams of scientists detecting polonium in Mr. Arafat’s belongings and bones and the discussion thereof. My personal position has nothing to do with the thread and my purported position has no contextual basis in reality.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I responded to your first (of several) PMs. Combining a demand that your account be deleted (which we never do) with abusive language, personal accusations of prejudiced behavior, and a serious misunderstanding of the rules regarding quotations, followed by a declaration that you were leaving the SDMB on your own did nothing to encourage further communication.
Re-reading your several missives, I find you inferring a number of ideas that were never expressed or implied. Your anger (long before my involvement in that thread) seems to have led you to a number of conclusions that are not supported by the actual texts of others’ posts. It is pretty much par for the course that any thread regarding Israel will include a subtext of who does or does not support Israel, but your accusations against other posters did not follow from their texts.
[/QUOTE]
Tomndebb, I have not received a single reply from you in private messages. I emailed you three times, once on 12-11-13 and twice on 1-11-14. No response. My issue is that you’re telling me that someone can quote me as an anti-Semite *and *that I am not allowed to point out. That’s not fair because context is important on a message board. I should be able to point out that my position was being mischaracterized by selective quoting, moreover, you should’ve been echoing that the uses of ellipses an <snips> are integral to discussion on the message boards.
Where were you when I was being called anti-Israel? Where were you where I told I believe in a “Zionist conspiracy” and “jew bankers” Instead, you’re harping about my grammar and telling me not to point out my posts were taken out of context. It makes no sense to me. If you’re not going to get involved, fine, good, but at least allow me the opportunity to defend myself. That’s all I am saying. I was being misquoted and my position mischaracterized and, given the board rules, I should have be able to argue that without interference.
- Honesty
For someone who was so eager to get his account deleted, you just can’t stop digging yourself into a deeper hole, can you?
Not to harp about your grammar but I believe you meant “I was told.” The way you wrote it means something very much different.
Exactly so. Thanks;)
The right to chews.
Kind of my reading as well, and/but I don’t understand how the full quote makes him look worse than the partial quote.
He complains about the Swiss part too. Personally I don’t get it other than it might make him look more thoughtful in that he has more than just the middle bit.
Whether the report is real/fake or it is for the sake of argument or not - it’s a conspiracy theory that is being attacked - however you couch it.
What, so we’re exhuming dead and buried threads now to wrangle over who poisoned the well?
The thread is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker!
It’s kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
Its premise is similarly deceased.
It’s so very sad when attempted suicide by mod fails.
Indeed. The stated devil’s advocate position was omitted.
+1 and +1
My apologies. The notification of your Warning appears in my PM box as a sent message. I had not realized that Warning notes had that appearance as I rarely look at my Sent Message box.
The manner in which you have misconstrued the rules of the board and the actions of the staff, along with your declaration that you were leaving the SDMB, gave me no reason to believe that further communication served any purpose. Nothing you have posted in this thread and nothing that you have claimed in your PMs to me, in which you made further accusations against me that did not coincide with reality, have led me to change that opinion.
You are correct, and I was in error, regarding whether I had further communication with you beyond the Warning and my post in that thread.
Just a note as someone who was participating in that thread -
I still cannot read that post as saying anything other than how it was quoted. The unquoted part did not change the meaning to my read at all. The “For argument’s sake” part bit just made no sense other than as garbeled writing or garbeled editing. The only way I still can see to have read that was Honesty stating that if the French report really exists then how do we know they, and the Russians, are not claiming natural causes only as a result of threats from Israel (or others)? Why believe them and thereby (to Honesty’s take) accuse the Swiss of being fraudulent? In full context the meaning was understood to spin any results (the French, the Russians) that found no evidence of polinium poisoning as part of an Israeli driven conspiricy to hide the results as opposed to the honest and brave Swiss.
Yes njtt I believe that the post had been quoted in an honest manner. Quoting complete posts is annoying and best avoided. We make judgements on how to quote the bit that we are responding to most clearly and then link to the source post. I believe that quoting did that and still reading the original in context after reading subsequent expalanations of what Honesty really meant cannot read or understand the meaning as anything other than that.
There was clearly no intent to decieve in that “selective” quote.
Didn’t see this post:
This is good point, Irishman. I defended myself, as you suggested. Please see this post, this one, and in this one. I told by a moderator to “back off” from me bringing this up. Please see this post:
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Back off.
It is clear to everyone reading the quote by Dissonance that he was addressing the specific point of your post with which he disagreed and that the extraneous sentences had little relevance to his point.
Your claim of “misquoting” is out of line. (And your juvenile (and misspelled) “strike three” jab does nothing to promote serious discussion.)
Do not accuse other posters of dishonesty. Particularly do not accuse other posters of dishonesty when your claim is false.
[/QUOTE]
- Honesty
I have nothing substantive to add to the thread except to thank the OP for bringing back manhattan. Was it some kind of bat signal against the reply box?
Bolding mine.
Thanks for the post.
I would like clarification on this just for my own sanity. ** CK Dexter Haven** writes:
[QUOTE=CK Dexter Haven]
Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.
This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached.
Text inside <QUOTE> tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the <QUOTE> tags.
Be aware that for legal reasons, the Moderators do not edit posts, except to rectify coding errors or remove unacceptable links - changes that do not require editorial judgment on our part. We will delete offensive posts on request if we feel deletion is warranted, or delete the thread if removal of the offending post would render the thread meaningless.
[/QUOTE]
When CK Dexter Haven writes “Text inside the quote tags are sacrosanct” what does that mean to you? He goes further to say that one may indicate portions of the quote tags by the use of ellipses. This suggest to me that the text within the quote tags should not be altered, omitted, or changed unless it is indicated by ellipses, <snips>, or other indicators. I’m curious as to what you think **CK Dexter Haven ** means and, if you could, please explain how **Dissonance’**s post fell within guidelines. Lastly, how do you think the message board would operate if everyone posted in this way? I asked you this before and there was no response. I mean, would you be OK me selectively quoting your post to make you look like a racist? What if I were to do this in every thread, would this be OK? Serious question.
- Honesty
Why the hell are the mods allowing the OP to continue this farce in this forum?
Not Tom but it means that
is okay. No need to have
But modifiying
into
is not.
Yes you “defended yourself” and accused others of trolling (well pretty much everyone in the thread who did not agree with you) and of misquoting and misrepresenting you again and again and again in that thread. And many responded the same way I did making it clear that the only meaning any of us could parse out of your post IN FULL CONTEXT was exactly as conveyed in the portion of your post selected for the quote.
Maybe pretty much everyone (if not everyone) else who was reading and participating in the thread all have reading comprehension issues. Maybe we were all in on a conspiricy to pile up on you and troll you with the mods in on the action. But perhaps, just perhaps, you were the one who was misconstruing things and claiming that you were not saying the things that you plainly had said.
You don’t want to post here anymore … fine and dandy. No one is asking you to stay anymore than anyone is telling you to leave. You want validation that the SDMB world was unfair and out to get you? Nah gonna happen.
Indeed. +1 and +1 for me as well.
There should not have been any “selective” quote without the standard quote-reducing symbols, such as (…) <snip>, or some other indication that the entire text was not quoted. How can you or anyone else say “there was clearly no intent to deceive in that “selective” quote”, when you are being told by the author of the quote that your version of it does indeed get his intended meaning incorrect? How does any reader know your intent in that thread? The omission of the qualifier changed the meaning of it. Period. If you are going to point to the word “intent”, I think it is important that you remember that word when you decide that someone is taking an anti-semitic position. Maybe instead of just assuming, you should, you know, determine the author’s intent first.
Honesty - I have no idea what was said in that thread, and I am not taking the time to read it. But I will give you my perception based on my own observations on this board over the years.
ANYTHING that a poster says that can be remotely construed as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic (or both) brings out the very worst in this board. The “intellectual honesty” that this board pretends to hold so sacrosanct flies out the window, and calls from all corners denouncing you as an anti-semite will continue unabated until you either quit the thread, or you spin yourself into quicksand that you cannot escape from. You spend most of your time defending yourself and/or trying to explain to people why you aren’t anti-semetic, but the charge sticks like super glue, and you cannot escape it. The debate or discussion gets lost, and the more you try to defend yourself, the more the “he doth protest too much” comments will continue to push you toward frustration and meltdown.
To be frank, I don’t know if Honesty is a raging anti-semite, homophobe, or klan-level racist (or all three) And I don’t care. For the purposes of this discussion, I believe leaving something like “for argument’s sake” out of a quote changes the stated point of view of a post completely, and that is, simply put, intellectually dishonest. How can anyone believe otherwise? By taking “for argument’s sake” out of ANY statement turns a “Devil’s advocate” position and turns it into a statement that has no qualifiers to it, and appears to any reader as a statement that is believed to be true by the author who it is attributed to. And we all know it. To pretend otherwise is being intellectually disingenuous, and doesn’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
It is not proper for someone to quote another incorrectly and change the fundamental meaning of the quote. Even if one puts (…) where the cuts have taken place, many people will not go back and read the full quote and get the wrong impression immediately. If the membership of this board is as intelligent as claimed, is there really any debating this?
So the question must be asked. Why would someone cut out something as important as “for argument’s sake”? Could it be to change the meaning of the words written, so as to strengthen the position of another person claiming, in this example, that Honesty is an anti-semite? Or is the contention that “leaving it out doesn’t change the meaning of the statement” actually stand up to scrutiny for everyone here? I’ll leave this as an exercise for the readership to come to the most likely conclusion. I would guarantee you all though, that if one of the people who clipped **Honesty’**s post had a post of theirs changed in a similar fashion, they would scream to the heavens. Because whether or not YOU think that cutting out “for argument’s sake” doesn’t change the meaning of the quote doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. And that’s because YOU didn’t write the original statement in the first place. If you have questions or confusion, ask. But to assume something is so, and to cut out a piece of a quote without indicating a deletion took place is wrong.
There are certain topics that are sacred cows on this board, and there can be no honest discussion on that topic without charges against a person’s personal belief system, character, or honesty. To believe otherwise is to wantonly ignore the reality of this message board and the behavior exhibited by various people.