I know you’re not supposed to mis-quote someone, but occasionally I have seen stuff like this:
Is this legit?
In the pit, maybe.
My understanding is that actually changing the content of somebody else’s post is a v. big no-no, even if it’s obvious that you’ve changed their words unless it’s an obvious joke post or a pitting.
We don’t even like “joke” posts like that, there’s too much room for abuse, which unfortunately some have tried to take advantage of in the past. That’s why we take this so seriously.
If you see evidence of someone twisting someone else’s words, bring it to our attention. It’s really important.
Either quote accurately or not at all, please.
your humble TubaDiva
Ok, I’ve seen it once or twice in the Pit, and didn’t know if that was OK, or not. If I see it again, I’ll report it.
TubaDiva: I didn’t participate in most of the threads re you-know-what, not even the welcome back thread. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you back. You’ve often answered my questions, and you always do it quickly, thanks for everything.
Naw, ain’t gonna do it. 
If I’m just responding to small part of a long post do I still have to include the whole thing?
Seems to me what Anaamika is talking about is when you see something like this:
FecesThrower, you are an idiot!
where the quoted post had content, but that content has been replaced by an editorial comment, obviously not a misquotation. I’ve seen this in the old days of usenet. Does this fall under the “quote accurately” rule?
Regarding posting quotes, how do I get the nested quotes like in the OP, so I can show the whole train of thought that I’m responding to?
<quote= the person responding to the nested quote> <quote=person making the nested quote> “Text of nested quote” </quote> “text of your response.” </quote>
To elaborate somewhat on FinnAgain’s perfectly accurate response - there’s no way that I personally know of to get nested quotes automatically - you have to hand code either the internal or the external quote (assuming you start out by “replying with quote” to one of the quotes you want) – as FinnAgain suggested (only of course replacing the <> symbols with ; but you knew that, right?).
For example – in this case I responded to your post (not FinnAgain’s!), then cut-n-pasted Finn’s response and hand-coded a starting [ quote ] tag before it and a closing [ /quote ] tag after the closing tag of your quote.
Dani
No, and in fact, it’s usually very distracting when someone quotes a whole long post. Consider quoting here to be very much the same as when you were writing a paper in high school or college and had to quote from some other material. You would only quote the part that was relevant to you, and you would use . . . to indicate that material was left out. We’ve tended to allow < snip > or < material deleted > when a LOT of material is left out, but it’s the same principle.
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.
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.
To sum up:
All quotes should be confined to what is relevant.
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 <snip> 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.
If you see an abuse of this policy, please send an email to the moderator(s) of the affected forum. Sometimes stuff gets past us.
your humble TubaDiva
So, do NOT do the following:
~kicks dirt~
Mods get to have all the fun!
~pouts~
OK, thanks for the info.
Okay, let’s try this puppy out…
Woohoo! Works beautifully! Thanks much.
What is this, 60 Minutes? 