# Okay, let's talk about (mis)quoting. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270 "2005-10-08T02:06:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/21 "2005-10-08T16:00:00Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Trouble is, **Giraffe** , I’m pretty sure I got warned once for doing one like your first example (though it may not have been an official warning and thus not archived - I’m not certain of enough context to find it now.) Very clearly not actual misquoting, but the rule as I’ve seen it thus far has always been that _any_ fucking around with the quote box is not allowed. I think it’s a stupid rule, so long as there’s no actual room for confusion, but that’s what has been enforced in my experience. I think the rule has evolved from its original intent, and at times it has been applied a little too strictly IMO, which is why I started the discussion on email with the other mods. While I can’t speak for the other mods, it is my understanding that we are all in agreement that both of the examples I gave are within the rules and would not draw a warning. > [@Silver Fire](#): > > This is quite a leap from “unbendable”, something that was decided by “The Powers That Be” less than a week ago (see Cajun Man’s post linked in the OP, dated the first of this month). > > So which is it? The posts in that thread were deemed to be in conflict with the quote rule because, despite the obvious humorous and non-malicious intent, the thread involved making things up and attributing them to other posters. As I said, any use of the quote tags that could give someone the impression that a poster said something he/she did not say is against the rules. Even though the thread seemed like harmless fun, we thought it would set a bad precedent. > [@Scylla](#): > > I used a quote box, and when I did, the “originally posted by” tag came along. The person I quoted threatened to sue me and SDMB. Leaving the “originally posted by” label on a quote does raise the bar quite a bit for what alterations are acceptable. Had I left **even sven** ’s name attached to the quote in the thread linked in the OP, that probably would have been pushing the rules, even with the clearly labeled disclaimers. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/22 "2005-10-08T16:04:26Z")
_ **Pushing???** _ ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/23 "2005-10-08T19:01:44Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > Well if you saw the even sven, then you’re also reading that that’s because it isn’t a direct quote of even sven’s post. > So no, I don’t see any misundertsandings. Did anyone seriously think even sven said that? Or are you just fulfilling your Offenderati quota for this month? Actually I said that **Giraffe** ’s post did a _good_ job of making it clear which words were his and which **even sven** ’s. I still think the use of the quote box that way is something that can be abused, and I suggested some rules I wouldn’t mind seeing that could take care of the problem. No offense-taker, I: if I want to make a silly person look silly, I find his own words, unadorned, usually work best. See above. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/24 "2005-10-08T22:15:06Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > nope, I guess you wouldn’t see any potential for misunderstandings there. So this wasn’t sarcastic? Because it sure sounded like it was. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/25 "2005-10-08T23:00:07Z")
Sarcastic? Not at all. I am sincerely convinced that you can’t or won’t see the potential for misunderstanding inherent in playing with quote-boxes. > [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > … So no, I don’t see any misundertsandings. But then again, I’m a sucker for believing what people tell me. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/26 "2005-10-08T23:18:04Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > Sarcastic? Not at all. I am sincerely convinced that you can’t or won’t see the potential for misunderstanding inherent in playing with quote-boxes. > > But then again, I’m a sucker for believing what people tell me. But you were talking about the potential for misunderstanding Giraffe’s quote box. There was none. I don’t believe that anyone would believe that even sven posted that. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/27 "2005-10-09T00:06:01Z")
So threads are closed because of flippant “quoting,” but mods can do it if it’s funny, or only done to highlight humor? \*\*Giraffe’\*\*s requote was not even funny. If the standard is humor, as he says, he failed. So, let’s ban the Mod! It would be great to see some of the people with power around here held to the same standard that paying members are. Even better, **Giraffe** , resign, because, even though you contested the rule, you acknowledge you violated it, if you accept **Cajun Man** ’s assertion. The unbendable rule, right **Cajun Man**? ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/28 "2005-10-09T00:16:48Z")
**Big Red** , let’s cut across. We’re on the verge of conflict when there’s no real underlying disagreement. You think **Giraffe** ’s post was okay. So do I, as I said in the first place. You and I agree that the real issue is whether words are likely to be wrongly attributed to a poster who would disagree with or be unfairly tainted by association with them, and I _think_ we agree that that’s bad. We apparently disagree in how much the use and/or abuse of quote boxes can contribute to this situation. Okay. I might be wrong. But the grounds for contention (it seems to me) are the rules I proposed: “I wouldn’t mind a rule that specified\* no\* tampering inside quote boxes, except perhaps for ellipses, and I’d like a technical innovation that inserted the post # that was being boxed. But _I’m pretty convinced that Giraffe, for example, has a handle on the uses and abuses involved. I would like to be sure that everybody else is also, though_” (italics added, even though it highlights an error in diction). I think that the rhetorical device **Giraffe** used (one more time: _legitimately_, in my opinion) is not as valuable as an absolute assurance that quotes in boxes are exact and accurate. There are other ways to make the argument. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/29 "2005-10-09T00:19:58Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > **Big Red** , let’s cut across. We’re on the verge of conflict when there’s no real underlying disagreement. You think **Giraffe** ’s post was okay. So do I, as I said in the first place. You and I agree that the real issue is whether words are likely to be wrongly attributed to a poster who would disagree with or be unfairly tainted by association with them, and I _think_ we agree that that’s bad. We apparently disagree in how much the use and/or abuse of quote boxes can contribute to this situation. Okay. I might be wrong. But the grounds for contention (it seems to me) are the rules I proposed: > > “I wouldn’t mind a rule that specified\* no\* tampering inside quote boxes, except perhaps for ellipses, and I’d like a technical innovation that inserted the post # that was being boxed. But _I’m pretty convinced that Giraffe, for example, has a handle on the uses and abuses involved. I would like to be sure that everybody else is also, though_” (italics added, even though it highlights an error in diction). > > I think that the rhetorical device **Giraffe** used (one more time: _legitimately_, in my opinion) is not as valuable as an absolute assurance that quotes in boxes are exact and accurate. There are other ways to make the argument. I think he showed his ass, and a blatant disregard for board rules. And, if you go to the rules in about this message board, you will see I am right. Should the rule be changed? Maybe. But as currently worded, he’s should be banned. The same rules we all live under. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/30 "2005-10-09T01:19:26Z")
Agreed, **King Of Soup.** You’re right, brownie55, it would be great to see some of the people with power around here held to the same standard that paying members are. We should scruitinize every poster’s post and not just the mods’ posts. You think the double standards favour mods? They do not. If **Ooner** had been the one to change the quote do you think there would be this pit thread? Sure, Giraffe should know the rules, mistakes happen, STFU. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/31 "2005-10-09T01:28:21Z")
> [@not by Excalibre](#): > > Right, but even very transparent fucking around with with your own putz has seriously _never_ been tolerated. There is _zero_ leeway, even if it’s obvious what you’re doing, and that’s been clear for some time. I’m not sure what I think about the rule, but I sure think **Pocket Pool Player** broke it. Seriously, **Excalibre** , buzz off and talk about how much you misunderstand, and take offense at S&M fans. Not something pointless, like this. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/32 "2005-10-09T01:50:44Z")
If this is the rule you mean, **brownie55** : [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2171051&postcount=9](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2171051&postcount=9) I’m not seeing a clear violation of it in the **Giraffe** post we’re discussing. It modifies another’s post, but not to make that poster look bad or to attribute ideas to that poster that he would disavow, or in fact to mislead any reader as to the true intent of either person. I would agree, as \*\*Big Red \*\* would not, that use of the quote box containing the bulk of **even sven** ’s prior post, and the positioning of that name immediately above, though not inside, the box, does tend to attribute the box’ contents to **even sven**. I think, however, that it does not do so _falsely_, because the post announces that the material in the quote-box has been tampered with, marks every departure from the original, and explains the reason why. That reason is a rhetorical shortcut to critique **even sven** ’s position. This tactic could have been and perhaps should have been forgone in the interest of a rule protecting the sanctity of the quote box (and I kind of support that, as I said earlier). But even **Cajun Man** , while he says the rule is unbendable, doesn’t clarify in that post what the rule actually disallows. So while I’m still in favor of a clearer rule that prevents the loose use of quote boxes (if we protect those, you see, we can know to take other forms of paraphrasing with proper caution), I think **Giraffe** skirted the existing rule neatly and non-maliciously. The technique he used could be subverted without much modification to jerkish ends, though, and that’s the main quarrel I have with it. I’m not a particular fan of **Giraffe** : I am sometimes irritated by his first resort to a smugly facetious “Of _course_ we Mods are arbitrary and wrongheaded” when an actual explanation of a ruling seems like a reasonable expectation (didn’t happen in this thread, by the way). But I don’t see a rule violation, just a need for further clarification of a well-intentioned and necessary policy. And thanks for your patience, **Go You Big Red Fire Engine**. I’m a little over-sensitive these days because of real-life stress, which isn’t your fault and shouldn’t be your problem. Apologies. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/33 "2005-10-09T02:13:28Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Seriously, **Excalibre** , buzz off and talk about how much you misunderstand, and take offense at S&M fans. Not something pointless, like this. Lisa Simpson: “I’ve seen those words before, but that just plain doesn’t make sense!” ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/34 "2005-10-09T02:38:46Z")
It is mean to be sarcastic, as well as refer to something off site. He knows what. However, I won’t elaborate, for fear of running afoul of board rules. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/35 "2005-10-09T02:50:01Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > It is mean to be sarcastic, as well as refer to something off site. He knows what. However, I won’t elaborate, for fear of running afoul of board rules. Too late. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/36 "2005-10-09T03:28:22Z")
Great, **Scott Plaid**. A confabulated quote, with the misquoted poster’s name in boldface _inside_ the quote box, poorly disclaimed, and content that resembles not a particle of the ostensibly-quoted poster’s original message. Better yet, it’s in furtherance of an off-board quarrel that the original poster did not import here. **Scott Plaid** , your choices, since you’ve omitted explaining yourself, are to apologize, establish your post’s relevance to the OP, or withdraw and take whatever lumps are doubtless on their way. Hell, **Big Red** thinks you’ve gone too far, and by the standards of this thread he’s the _lenient_ judge. At least, you may have established part of the line to be drawn around use of quote boxes, and for that service I hope you get your posting privileges back someday soon. Now, I’m anxious to see how flexible the rules are when there’s no room for weighing intent. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/37 "2005-10-09T03:36:06Z")
My answer would be to tick out my tongue, and make a loud sound. Now, it could be that I am refering to one of the sites-not-to-be-mention. However, It could be that I am talking about something else, such as an exchanging of email, or maybe- Nah, all this stuff would be again the intent of the rules, anyway. My real arguement is to say, You don’t like people modifying quotes in certain, rare circumstances such as **Giraffe** ’ s example, **Excalibre**? Well then, lump it. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/38 "2005-10-09T03:38:01Z")
She. I’m a she. Not that it’s important. I just don’t understand why everyone thinks I am male. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/39 "2005-10-09T03:45:18Z")
_Shrug_ Maybe it is because (Some) people associate musculinity with firetrucks. Just my WAG. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270/40 "2005-10-09T03:56:43Z")
> [@brownie55](#): > > So threads are closed because of flippant “quoting,” but mods can do it if it’s funny, or only done to highlight humor? If you read my first two posts in this thread, you’ll see where I’ve outlined the rules of quote tags as I understand them. Those rules apply equally to mods and members. And, as I’ve also explained, I believe my post was within those rules. Now, be careful here, because if you use the same level of reading comprehension you’ve shown so far, you’re likely to get yourself into trouble. Don’t just skim those posts and summarize them in a way that fits into your current worldview, e.g. “ **Giraffe** said we can misquote people” or “the mods are stealing my thoughts”. A key phrase to note is “the burden of clarity lies on the person altering the quote”. > [@](#): > > \*\*Giraffe’\*\*s requote was not even funny. If the standard is humor, as he says, he failed. I’ll give you that. It was far from my best work. > [@](#): > > The unbendable rule, right **Cajun Man**? I believe the word unbendable in this case refers to the specific rule we have about making up words and attributing them to other posters being unbendable, even in a fun thread where you’d have to be pretty stupid to think those were actual quotes. Not that the rules rigidly restrict the quote tags to only exact reproductions of previous statements and nothing else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-lets-talk-about-mis-quoting/325270.md?page=3)