Replyto Tomndebb

The thread mysteriously closed while I was in the editing box…

(bolding mine)

tomndebb, what I wrote is a *paragraph *not just a bunch of sentences cobbled together with duct tape. You’re under the illusion that a paragraph is simply a list of disparate ideas or bullet points that one can pick and choose from will. This is not the case and, in case you (or anyone else) need a refresher, this is a definition of a paragraph.

(bolding mine)

In any case, we’re at an impasse. I’m left with my initial position that my post was mischaracterized, my posts were decontextualized, and you were more worried about me misspelling “You’re” than getting the thread on track or ensuring my post was quoted in context. To that, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that you did not address what my supposed anti-Semitism, my alleged belief in the arcane powers of Jew bankers to influence the world, and my supposed belief that there was a Zionist conspiracy to murder Mr. Arafat had anything to do with the thread’s topic. I am also disappointed (but, this time, quite surprised) that you did not point out how in my initial exchange with Dissonance I failed to “point out the way in which [Dissonance’s] response appears to have missed an important fact or idea.” To this, I’ll show my cards and tell you that I feel that I went out of my way to address Dissonance’s off-topic concerns about my supposed anti-Semitism and get the thread back on Mr. Arafat. It’s a pity you couldn’t see that.

Unless you’re going to address my specific questions or rebut the utility of a paragraph vs a sentence, I’ll let you have the last word.

  • Honesty


No mystery about it. The moderator was comparing the thread to the constitutional convention of Free Luna in 2076, and since there is no Bernardo de la Paz here to shepherd the thread to a successful conclusion, it was closed.

“I Win!” it cried. It capered obscenely in the hot, rising mist, waving its hands over its head. “NOT TOO LATE! I WIN! NOT TOO LATE! NOT TOO LATE!
NOT __”

Oh, for fuck’s sake.

Quoted in full because I don’t want to be accused of misquoting.

Honesty, to my recollection, we have never had a discussion or argument on any topic. You may take it, then, that my comments are not personal.

First, by all standards of which I’m aware, you were not misquoted in the underlying thread.

Second, you’re misusing the appellation “devil’s advocate.” What you made was a conventional counter-factual argument, i.e., assume I’m wrong. If so, then …

Third, Dissonance rightly called you out for attempting from this premise to shift the burden of proof.

Fourth, I have no illusions that the mods are perfect. But ISTM they do pretty well most of the time. That seems to me a fair description of what happened here.

There is nothing in the rules that says you have to quote the entirety of someones post. Or their paragraph. Sometimes its beneficial to do so in order to address one point in a group of ideas. As long as the quoted portion is properly attributed and not edited there is no problem. If you think that the quoted portion was taken out of context, that is what the reply button is for. There is no need to change the rules to make it permissible to only quote the entirety of a post.

I don’t see how this is a hard concept to grasp.

This is getting to be one of the longest flounces I’ve ever seen at this board.

If mods won’t close accounts on request, getting banned is the next best thing. It won’t delete her posts, of course, but a lot of people don’t realize it when they go all suicide-by-mod.

There is nothing that says one must quote the entirety of someone’s post, the entirety of their paragraph, or even the entirety of their sentence. In fact, it is standard practice to excise parts of posts.

The intent of quoting is to draw attention to the line, statement, or turn of phrase that one wishes to address. It isn’t necessary, but often it is helpful. But selecting even a two-word phrase and responding only to that phrase can be done without leading and trailing ellipses. They just aren’t necessary to realize the selected bit was part of a larger whole.

Yes, selective quoting can be used to distort meaning. I don’t believe in this instance it did.

I’m sorry people hijacked your thread.

I frequently cut what I choose to quote out of longer context for several reasons.

Firstly, it saves the reader from trying to parse which specific thing I am replying to out of a large block of text.

Secondly, it’s pithy to reply to a single point; I like pithy. I’m betting others like pithy too, in preference to a huge block of text – particularly text they’ve already read.

Thirdly, it clarifies my meaning. Typically my reply is focused narrowly and I don’t want to argue about/discuss a whole huge topic.

I try not to change anyone’s meaning. If by chance I take something sufficiently out of context as to change its meaning, I am sure other posters will call me on it, and I stand ready to clarify or retract.

Your insistence on quoting an entire paragraph, perhaps even an entire post, every time is at odds with these excellent reasons. I mean, why stop there? Why not quote someone’s entire body of work each time? That way you’d get even more context.


I couldn’t agree more.

I have nothing to add.



Oh c’mon. The correct rhyme choice for this thread can only be “absurd!”


Nope, I believe the appropriate rhyme would be “turd” …but that might be considered threadshitting. :smiley:

I merely observe that kayaker cited Honesty without using an ellipsis or “[snip]” to indicate that he was making a sizable omission.

Which is pretty funny, and, I may be wrong, but was not intended as irony.

In difficult conversations or debates, where lengthy positions (posts) are stated–perhaps even more so when they are followed by other people (open board and all, not PMs) where the intensity and knowledge of every detail is less than that of the two temporarily primary interlocutors–it is customary in reply to summarize what you believe to be the point of what was just said, certainly including which part you intend to focus on in your response.

This is particularly important, and polite, and gracious, in responding to a single long post, where many points d’appui present themselves. And then if the person whose argument or particular point disagrees with how you’ve understood or interpreted your post based on that summary/comprehension, you can stop him right there and focus or correct it. You have at cleared up at an earlier stage than otherwise in the discussion tree where something went off track.

Or you can start debating the validity of the summary/comprehension, get thoroughly muddled when trying to summarize the errors in the summary that now finally are mutually agreed upon, get thoroughly sidetracked as to the original point being heatedly debated, and turn into my wife and me on any given weekday.

And no-one wants that, certainly not in a public forum.