# The Kavanaugh Effect. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189 "2018-11-08T14:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/281 "2019-01-29T21:39:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > _shrug_ I’m confident that I’ve demonstrated my point to the less-stridently-partisan readers. Yes, I’m pretty sure that you have. > [@Shodan](#): > > Your impression is wrong. What was being attempted was an argument from authority - that Kavanaugh must be guilty because GQ says so. Discrediting one claim from GQ casts doubt on the rest of their claims. No, that is the definition of ad hominem. If you show that someone got something wrong on one thing, you then claim that that discredits them on other things. You are explaining your use of the fallacy, as if the explanation of the flaw in your logic somehow removes it. I’ve also yet to have seen the GQ article discredited on that point. All you have to do is make one citation that Fishburne did not tell GQ that he had heard the term used for sexual practices while in high school, and that would discredit that claim. You and HD have spectacularly failed to do this such simple cite, instead, just offering excuse after excuse as to why you can’t. > [@](#): > > The claim “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that” is discredited by showing four examples of people from that high school did mean that. Please cite the post that you got that quote from, or retract it. > [@](#): > > Fortunately you don’t speak for everyone, so this claim is also discredited. Not a claim, just advice. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/282 "2019-01-29T22:37:22Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … I’ve also yet to have seen the GQ article discredited on that point. All you have to do is make one citation that Fishburne did not tell GQ that he had heard the term used for sexual practices while in high school, and that would discredit that claim. … You seem to fundamentally misunderstand which “point” GQ is wrong about. I have no trouble believing that Fishburne has never heard “Devil’s triangle” used to refer to a drinking game. The quote by him is probably authentic, truthful, and accurate, but … “that’s nice, dear” … it’s _irrelevant_. It doesn’t prove that Kavanaugh was lying about “Devil’s triangle”, which is the underlying claim that GQ is making. GQ is arguing that Kavanaugh lied about “Devil’s triangle” and their “evidence” is that they found a guy that was ignorant of the term. That doesn’t prove anything, except that Fishburne is ignorant. I laid this all out in a previous post after you wrote this: > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … That you cherry pick a single sentence out of an article that you try to find some room for doubt, allowing you to dismiss all the rest of the evidence presented in that article does not actually put anything into a “win” column for you in this debate. (which seems to be a nice summary of the mistake you yourself are making here) > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not focused on one particular sentence. The big picture idea was that [this exchange with Whitehouse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ccXpDhMmBY&t=167) was a “lie” by Justice Kavanaugh. It was published in the media, and elsewhere online (even here at the SDMB IIRC). That whole idea (that Justice Kavanaugh was lying when he said “Devil’s Triange” was a reference to a drinking game) is false. It is, itself, a lie perpetuated by many on the Left. There is substantial evidence to support that conclusion. > > That the author of the GQ article quotes Fishburne is not evidence that Justice Kavanaugh lied, but that Fishburne was ignorant. Again, this is not something that should be in doubt for any reasonable person: > > [CNN - Georgetown Prep alumni back up Kavanaugh’s testimony on ‘devil’s triangle’](https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/georgetown-prep-devils-triangle/index.html) > > The fact that GQ has not corrected their mistake is an indictment of their credibility. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/283 "2019-01-29T23:36:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You seem to fundamentally misunderstand which “point” GQ is wrong about. I have no trouble believing that Fishburne has never heard “Devil’s triangle” used to refer to a drinking game. The quote by him is probably authentic, truthful, and accurate, but … “that’s nice, dear” … it’s _irrelevant_. It doesn’t prove that Kavanaugh was lying about “Devil’s triangle”, which is the underlying claim that GQ is making. GQ is arguing that Kavanaugh lied about “Devil’s triangle” and their “evidence” is that they found a guy that was ignorant of the term. That doesn’t prove anything, except that Fishburne is ignorant. I laid this all out in a previous post after you wrote this: You seem to be mistaking evidence for proof, and somehow thinking that they are synonyms. At least, you just used them as synonyms in that post. Do you actually not know the difference between them, or are you hoping that the people that read your words don’t? > [@](#): > > (which seems to be a nice summary of the mistake you yourself are making here) Not really. I am not discrediting you based on one cherry picked claim, I am arguing with you over the claim that you chose to cherry pick. If you note, I nearly always quote your posts in full, and reply to as much of them as I am able. This helps to keep them in context. You pick quotes out of context, then demand that they mean something other than what they plainly do mean in the context that you removed them from. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/284 "2019-01-30T16:58:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You seem to be mistaking evidence for proof, and somehow thinking that they are synonyms. At least, you just used them as synonyms in that post. **HurricaneDitka** isn’t the one making the mistake. If you want Kavanaugh convicted of perjury, you need proof. You haven’t got any proof. If you want anyone who isn’t stridently partisan to believe he lied, you need good evidence, and you haven’t got any of that either. The GQ article claimed that people at Kavanaugh’s high school didn’t use the Devil’s Triangle term in the same sense that Kavanaugh did. Four people - five including Kavanaugh - said they did use the term in that sense. So, no proof, and no good evidence. And no perjury, no lies, no nothing. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/285 "2019-01-30T17:16:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **HurricaneDitka** isn’t the one making the mistake. If you want Kavanaugh convicted of perjury, you need proof. You haven’t got any proof. If you want anyone who isn’t stridently partisan to believe he lied, you need good evidence, and you haven’t got any of that either. The GQ article claimed that people at Kavanaugh’s high school didn’t use the Devil’s Triangle term in the same sense that Kavanaugh did. Four people - five including Kavanaugh - said they did use the term in that sense. So, no proof, and no good evidence. And no perjury, no lies, no nothing. Luckily, the House is likely to conduct a full investigation, and thus we might actually find proof and/or good evidence of perjury, if it’s out there to find. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/286 "2019-01-30T17:31:31Z")
Kavanaugh has already been fully investigated, more than once. Another fishing expedition isn’t going to find anything new. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/287 "2019-01-30T17:33:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Kavanaugh has already been fully investigated, more than once. Cite for any investigation into perjury? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/288 "2019-01-30T17:47:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **HurricaneDitka** isn’t the one making the mistake. If you want Kavanaugh convicted of perjury, you need proof. You haven’t got any proof. If you want anyone who isn’t stridently partisan to believe he lied, you need good evidence, and you haven’t got any of that either. The GQ article claimed that people at Kavanaugh’s high school didn’t use the Devil’s Triangle term in the same sense that Kavanaugh did. Four people - five including Kavanaugh - said they did use the term in that sense. So, no proof, and no good evidence. And no perjury, no lies, no nothing. And you are compounding upon HD’s mistake. He claims that Fishburne telling GQ that he had heard the term relation to a sex act to be “a lie perpetuated by many on the Left.”, and claims to have substantial evidence to support that conclusion. He has yet to have presented that evidence, none, not a single shred. Unless you can provide evidence that Fishburne did not actually say what GQ reported him on saying then your accusations of dishonesty are without any sort of merit whatsoever. Do you have any evidence of this? If so, please present it. If not, then you should stop, without any evidence at all, (much less proof), making unfounded accusations against the magazine and its author. However, he has gone on to say that Fishburne’s statements are not evidence. This is not true. They are evidence. What no one has claimed is that they are proof, which is what you and HD keep trying to conflate it into. I have not said that he should be convicted of perjury on this charge, in fact, it has been specifically stated that this is the most circumstantial of the claims against him, as it is impossible to tell what is really in the mind of Kavanaugh. But, instead of accepting that we have said that this would not be proof of perjury, you instead keep arguing that this is not proof of perjury. It’s almost like you are arguing against an argument that is not being made. In fact, it’s exactly like that. Why would you do something like that? Why can’t you argue against the arguments that are actually being made, rather than having to make stuff up to rail against? Once again, this is all a distraction, a nut pick, an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have nothing to defend on any of the other claims against trump. You nutpick on this one, claiming that your opinion should be considered fact, and as such, the article, its author, and the publication should all be discredited. I’ve invited either of you to move on from your strawman, to defend any of the other claims. You have refused to do so, and I find this to be evidence (not proof, because, remember, they are different things), that you are unable to do so. Also, speaking of stuff that you seem to be making up, you claimed that I said “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that”, and you have yet to come up with the post where I said that. Please cite this quote, or admit that you falsely attributed a quote to me. I have said that _I_ believe that he was lying out his ass on that. That is not enough for perjury. However, I also believe that if an actual investigation is done, that it will be found that he was lying on several of the other counts. I believe he was lying on all of them, though I do not believe that all of them can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/289 "2019-01-30T18:04:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’ve invited either of you to move on from your strawman, to defend any of the other claims. You have refused to do so, and I find this to be evidence (not proof, because, remember, they are different things), that you are unable to do so. We both have done this several times, but you don’t seem to be paying attention. > [@](#): > > Also, speaking of stuff that you seem to be making up, you claimed that I said “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that”, and you have yet to come up with the post where I said that. Please cite this quote, or admit that you falsely attributed a quote to me. Nope, made no such claim, and didn’t attribute the claim to anyone, falsely or otherwise. I’m sorry you don’t understand the concept of a paraphrase of a claim made in a fashion magazine, but I doubt anything can be done about it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/290 "2019-01-30T19:13:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We both have done this several times, but you don’t seem to be paying attention. Must have missed it. Please give a post #. > [@](#): > > Nope, made no such claim, and didn’t attribute the claim to anyone, falsely or otherwise. I’m sorry you don’t understand the concept of a paraphrase of a claim made in a fashion magazine, but I doubt anything can be done about it. Oh, you are right, that I am the one who doesn’t know about paraphrasing. [Err, wait.](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/anderson/quotation.htm) > [@](#): > > When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, without using quotation marks. You may use the source’s words as long as you do not use more than two in a row from any passage. So, was this just a matter that you don’t know the difference between a quote and a paraphrase? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/291 "2019-01-30T19:45:35Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Must have missed it. Yes, you did. > [@](#): > > Please give a post #. No, that’s not necessary. > [@](#): > > Oh, you are right, that I am the one who doesn’t know about paraphrasing. [Err, wait.](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/anderson/quotation.htm) Correct, you don’t. > [@](#): > > So, was this just a matter that you don’t know the difference between a quote and a paraphrase? No, it wasn’t. Now that we have cleared that up, perhaps you could address the things you missed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/292 "2019-01-30T19:47:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Also, speaking of stuff that you seem to be making up, you claimed that I said “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that”, and you have yet to come up with the post where I said that. Please cite this quote, or admit that you falsely attributed a quote to me. … This is a serious accusation (falsely attributing quotes), and one that I don’t think is supported by the facts. Shodan never said “k9bfriender said …” or anything like that. He put the line in quotes, but it’s not accurate to say that he “claimed that [you] said” it or that he falsely attributed it to you. You should retract this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/293 "2019-01-30T19:56:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This is a serious accusation (falsely attributing quotes), and one that I don’t think is supported by the facts. Shodan never said “k9bfriender said …” or anything like that. He put the line in quotes, but it’s not accurate to say that he “claimed that [you] said” it or that he falsely attributed it to you. You should retract this. It’s not a big deal. He is just mistaken, that’s all. > [@Ed Zotti](#): > > We recognize that quotation marks are often used casually, and that sometimes a quoted expression is actually just a paraphrase. [Cite.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20839161&postcount=28) Of course if he wants to report it, he is free to do so. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/294 "2019-01-30T20:04:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, you did. Hmmm, nope, sorry. > [@](#): > > No, that’s not necessary. Or apparently possible, as it would be easy for you to show a post #, but instead, you evade. > [@](#): > > Correct, you don’t. Right, so where is your cite that paraphrases are supposed to be unattributed and in quotes? Nice try on doubling down, but you really ought to admit that this confusion originated by your lack of understanding of how to properly attribute a paraphrase. Otherwise, you are just digging > [@](#): > > No, it wasn’t. Now that we have cleared that up, perhaps you could address the things you missed. And what is it that you are claiming that I missed? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This is a serious accusation (falsely attributing quotes), and one that I don’t think is supported by the facts. Shodan never said “k9bfriender said …” or anything like that. He put the line in quotes, but it’s not accurate to say that he “claimed that [you] said” it or that he falsely attributed it to you. You should retract this. To anyone who would read Shodan’s post, it would strongly appear as though he was quoting me. He did not attribute it to anyone else, not to the magazine or to another poster, and he was directly addressing and replying to me. I actually even thought that I must have somehow said what he put into quotes, as that is how things like that are done, and I went and checked and rechecked to see where I would have said that. There are actually specific conventions on how to attribute quotes and paraphrases to avoid exactly this sort of confusion, but it seems that Shodan was ignorant of them. Are you also proudly proclaiming your ignorance in how to properly attribute direct quotes or indirect paraphrases? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/295 "2019-01-30T20:08:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … To anyone who would read Shodan’s post, it would strongly appear as though he was quoting me. … By way of disproving this claim as well, I did read his post, and it did not appear that way to me. I thought it was fairly obvious that you said the lines in the quoteboxes and the line in quotation marks was a summary / “paraphrase” of the argument GQ was making. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/296 "2019-01-30T20:17:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s not a big deal. He is just mistaken, that’s all. > [Cite.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20839161&postcount=28) Of course if he wants to report it, he is free to do so. > > Regards, > Shodan Of course, as usual, you quote out of context. That was in response to LHOD specifically asking what if a paraphrase was attributed to him as a quote that he did not make. That was not what if a paraphrase of another source was used in such a way as to be attributed to him. I did not feel that it was something that was reportable, just something that you had done that created confusion, rather than productive conversation. At first, I thought you had simply made a mistake. I didn’t realize how much you would be doubling down on it. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > By way of disproving this claim as well, I did read his post, and it did not appear that way to me. I thought it was fairly obvious that you said the lines in the quoteboxes and the line in quotation marks was a summary / “paraphrase” of the argument GQ was making. That would only make sense if you also incorrectly believed that paraphrases are supposed to be in quotation marks. I thought that maybe he had quoted from the article, but ran a search on the article as well, and that phrase did not show up there either. At the very least, you should have thought that that was a quote from the article, if you didn’t think it it was attributed to me. And to top it off, it is a very inaccurate paraphrase that does not sum up the article at all, and makes claims that the article does not, which is why the honest thing to do would be to say, “To paraphrase the article:” rather than making a claim that the article or a poster had actually said that. Not attributing the quote or paraphrase is extremely poor practice. So, really, it all comes down to that Shodan should do a better job at citing and attributing his quotes and paraphrases, and then we can put this all behind us. Unless you want to continue the hijack that you have started, of course, and continue to insist that using language improperly in a confusing fashion is the proper thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/297 "2019-01-30T20:28:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … continue to insist that using language improperly in a confusing fashion is the proper thing to do. You’re the only one confused by it. I understand that quotation marks sometimes signify something other than a direct quote. So does Shodan. So does / did Ed Zotti. You’re the only one that doesn’t seem to get that. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/298 "2019-01-30T20:30:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Of course, as usual, you quote out of context. That was in response to LHOD specifically asking what if a paraphrase was attributed to him as a quote that he did not make. That was not what if a paraphrase of another source was used in such a way as to be attributed to him. No paraphrase was attributed to you. I don’t know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect. **Ed Zotti** says quite clearly that quotation marks can be used around paraphrases, which is what I did to correct your notion. > [@](#): > > That would only make sense if you also incorrectly believed that paraphrases are supposed to be in quotation marks. Can be. They don’t have to be. > [@](#): > > I thought that maybe he had quoted from the article, but ran a search on the article as well, and that phrase did not show up there either. A paraphrase is different from a quote. > [@](#): > > And to top it off, it is a very inaccurate paraphrase… No, you just have a different opinion on what the article does, or should, say. A wrong opinion, but that’s OK. > [@](#): > > So, really, it all comes down to that Shodan should do a better job at citing and attributing his quotes and paraphrases, and then we can put this all behind us. Or maybe you now know more than you did about how things are done on the SDMB, and won’t post cites from elsewhere as if they were authoritative. > [@](#): > > Or apparently possible, as it would be easy for you to show a post #, but instead, you evade. It’s **Shodan** ’s Law. If you didn’t read it the first time, giving a post number isn’t going to help. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/299 "2019-01-31T17:30:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No paraphrase was attributed to you. I don’t know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect. **Ed Zotti** says quite clearly that quotation marks can be used around paraphrases, which is what I did to correct your notion. Can be. They don’t have to be. > A paraphrase is different from a quote. Okay, you have the citation of Zotti saying that, under certain circumstances, (though different circumstances than these) making the error of putting quotes around a paraphrase is not a warnable offense. That is not a citation that that it proper practice. You are completely incorrect on this, and it’s not a bit deal, but if you would like to avoid confusion in the future, then you should learn to properly attribute things, so that, when you say someone said or claimed something, people will know that it is something that you have made up, not something that anyone has actually claimed. Or you could double down, and continue to claim that “Shodan’s interpretation of a particular ruling on SDMB rules override proper practices and say that putting quotes around paraphrases is the correct way of attributing your opinion on a subject”. ^^^^ That’s not warnable, but that is extremely poor writing practice there. ^^^^ > [@](#): > > No, you just have a different opinion on what the article does, or should, say. A wrong opinion, but that’s OK. Right, what you did was that you stated what your _opinion_ was about what the article does, or should say. But, you didn’t say it was your opinion, you said that it was their claim, and you put it into quotes. That is not stating an opinion, that is attributing a claim. > [@](#): > > Or maybe you now know more than you did about how things are done on the SDMB, and won’t post cites from elsewhere as if they were authoritative. Right, they won’t give you a warning because you made a mistake in attributing a quote. That’s understandable, people shouldn’t get warnings just because they don’t know how to attribute paraphrases. However, that does not mean that putting quotes around a paraphrase is actually best practices, and saying that: > [@actual quote from Shodan](#): > > The claim “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that” implies that someone actually made that claim, but no one made that claim, you just made it up and then attributed what you had just made up to someone else. In context, since you were replying directly to me, I thought you were attributing it to me, but, you apparently were attributing it to GQ. Unfortunately, as you neglected to say who you were attributing your paraphrase to, that added to the confusion of you putting quotes around it. > [@](#): > > It’s **Shodan** ’s Law. If you didn’t read it the first time, giving a post number isn’t going to help. Nice evasion, even taking it to a point of being a Law that you will avoid substantive discussion if you have a chance to instead make a snide but veiled insult. To be fair, this does go quickly, and it is possible that I missed the post that you were talking about, I may not have even seen it, in which case, giving a post # would help immensely. A reasonable response to that would be to give a post # that you would like me to look at. Or, you could just evade because you know that you have nothing. As usual. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/300 "2019-01-31T18:09:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s **Shodan** ’s Law. If you didn’t read it the first time, giving a post number isn’t going to help. Does this apply to your own posts? Like you repeatedly asserting that no investigation into Kavanaugh’s possible perjury is warranted because there have been such investigations already, without actually producing any evidence of a single past investigation into possible perjury by Kavanaugh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=16)