So, NO altering of quotes, even if just for purely humorous effect, is allowed either?

That’s always been allowed, sorta. I don’t think you can say “Kayaker said [edited quote]” but it’s my understanding that you can say:

I’ve been on this board since early 1999, and I don’t think it is possible to come up with a rule that removes all chances of rules-lawyering.

How about a rule that says “No rules lawyering”.

That’s would not be inside , that’d be in-between quote signs. right rule-lawyers?

Lacks foundation and is more prejudicial than probative.


“We’re going to beat the crap out of you because there’s no rule about misquoting MORONS inside quote signs.”

I plead insanity to all charges …

I will brook no ambiguity or literary license as far as quotes are concerned. It is either EXACT, or it isn’t a QUOTE. It’s pretty much as simple as that. Once you cross the line, how far do you go, and who determines that?

To avoid ambiguity, I personally avoid even that. I use apostrophes instead.

Yeppers. Like this, folks:

“I’ll point out that there’s no rule about misquoting people inside quote [del]SIGNS[/del] MARKS.”


(Thought I might as well take my nitpick and use it as an example. Hope you don’t mind, JC. :))

The downside, of course, is if you lie too often using quote marks pretty soon no one will believe anything you say.

I don’t know where everybody got the idea that (a) I fervently wish to continue said practice, and am (b) thus looking for a way out, by (c) attempting to “rules lawyer” my way around the rule. I simply wanted a clarification-it’s not going to lose me any sleep.

I am well aware that many such inquiries in ATMB over the years were indeed intended to argue for their (favored) rule interpretation, precisely so that they could continue said practice unmodded (often leading to threads here hundreds of posts long). My OP was not intended as such.

Since there does appear to be some ambiguity in said rule (as raised by other Dopers in posts 4, 5, 6, 8, 33, 36, & 40), then it doesn’t seem to be an open and shut case to me, like some are arguing. I also grasp (post 9) why said practice got implemented. The ambiguous part may have been a bit of legacy language inadvertently carried over past said incident. <shrug>

This also works for lying without using quote marks.

JNot sure how this is apropos to my post, but whatever. You could have quoted JC, or nobody at all, and it would have made more sense.


I disagree. Look all you have to do is quote, then copy, paste & edit.

e.g. But there are times when I feel like saying, Just follow the damn rules aready!’ IMO.

No. I was pointing out that the rule about mis-quoting has parts that deal with what is permissible inside a quote tag, but also has to deal with the concept of someone mis-quoting someone without using those tags. It seemed to me that this was being missed as a possibility by some of those commenting on the rule.

In part, that highlights the utility of the catch-all “don’t be a jerk” rule.

So, you’re saying the wholesale slaughter of women and children is fine? Well I’m sorry, but I disagree.

It’s a better deal than retail.

Only if they forget their place and try to eat any of the bacon. Then hell yeah.

Don’t need to be Norwegian nice, but No Jerkishness around these parts is as old as Slug’s mortarboard.

For my part, I always add " Bolding mine " immediately after a formal quote that I’ve bolded a portion of. Never a note.

I also write, or try to remember to write, “snip” before quoting part of a post. I’ll change to the requested format of " …quoted… ".

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk