toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[annabenedetti]

I killed it, didn't I? :doh:

 

[serpentdove]

"You're wrong on the necessity of ellipses..."

You said that. lain: Let the reader decide. each:

"[R]eaders don't decide grammar."

:Shimei: Do you decide rules of grammer? Eccl 10:2 :Commie:

You believe that ellipses (...) and/or brackets ( [ ] ) are not required when editing another's quote. I believe they are required. Let the reader decide. See: summary

[Misquoting me] "I told you why I did it and that it was intentional."

I told you why it is unethical (Eph 4:14). each:

"I was attempting to educate you on spotting the difference between failing to reproduce every jot and tittle of a thing and altering the meaning..."

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed

[Misquoting me example 1 and 2] "...[T]hose links aren't to other people. They're to your posts and my responses to them..."

I provide the reader proof that you misquoted me (example 1,2,3). each:

[I don't dispute the fact that I have been banned.] "...[Y]ou can't dispute it."

I don't dispute it. :hammer:

See:

:yawn: Poisoning the Well

 

[Arthur Brain]

My favorite part was her insistence that not only am I misquoting but that I do that regularly to others, followed by a couple of links to her own posts. lain: The old safety in numbers, me, myself and I approach?

:chuckle: Mind you, come to think on it I'm sure you misquoted me once saying I loved spam fritters....lain:

She doesn't appear to understand that so long as I don't alter what she's saying, as I did in the intentional misquote, I can leave off anything I want. So she could say, "The French people have, historically, poor personal hygiene, a fact attested to by every surrounding culture, especially those down wind." Hogswallows History of Europe, C&Howe Pub. 1999.

And I could simply reproduce: "The French people have, historically, poor personal hygiene..." without there being a misquote of any sort. Or, I could reproduce: "The French people have, historically, poor personal hygiene, a fact attested to by every surrounding culture, especially those down wind." And omit either the end citation or any subsequent foot note without altering the text or meaning or in any way be substantively accused of misquoting.

Indeed. How this isn't obvious is an enigma in itself. If that's SD's "criteria" for 'misquoting' people then she's one of the biggest culprits on the board for omission.

I think the technical term you're looking for is: daft. lain: She doesn't hold herself to the same standards of proof. Well, more hypocrite then...or perhaps daftocrite might suffice. :think:

'Daftocrite'?

I could get behind that...:chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Smells like carrots.

lain:

Bet he had a frosty expression. :think:

I killed it, didn't I? :doh:

Between the two of you?

Yes...

lain:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Between the two of you?

Yes...

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

:rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You said that. lain: Let the reader decide. each:
:Shimei: Do you decide rules of grammer? Eccl 10:2 :Commie:

You believe that ellipses (...) and/or brackets ( [ ] ) are not required when editing another's quote. I believe they are required. Let the reader decide. See: summary

I told you why it is unethical (Eph 4:14). each:
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed
I provide the reader proof that you misquoted me (example 1,2,3). each:

I don't dispute it. :hammer:

See:

:yawn: Poisoning the Well

Gordon Bennett! :doh:

TH isn't disputing the fact he deliberately misquoted you! Once again it seems the word 'context' isn't actually in your vocabulary....

He did it to show you what a misquote actually is :freak:

*gibber* etc....

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

What can I say? There was so little to work with! :chuckle:

(And when two posts are simultaneous, timing is everything.....)

 

[Arthur Brain]

What can I say? There was so little to work with! :chuckle:

(And when two posts are simultaneous, timing is everything.....)

Just a shame you didn't achieve it....

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

Just a shame you didn't achieve it....

lain:

It wasn't for lack of trying. :chuckle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Just a shame you didn't achieve it....

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

:crackup:

I'd rep you again if I could...

 

[Angel4Truth]

:crackup:

I'd rep you again if I could...

:rotfl:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It wasn't for lack of trying. :chuckle:

Well, nobody can say you're not 'trying'....

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whos's been filming me?!

:shocked:

 

[annabenedetti]

Well, nobody can say you're not 'trying'....

Gloating isn't attractive without a full set of teeth. lain:

 

[serpentdove]

"My favorite part was her insistence that not only am I misquoting but that I do that regularly to others..."

Example 1,2,3. each:

"The old safety in numbers, me, myself and I approach?..."

These are facts. each:

"Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry." ~ Dennis Prager :Commie: Eccl 10:2

"She doesn't appear to understand that so long as I don't alter what she's saying..."

:yawn: Ad hominem.

You alter what I say:

"I illustrated an actual alteration of your words." ~ Town Heretic

"I did in the intentional misquote, I can leave off anything I want..."

:yawn: Strawman

First, you removed scripture (Jn 1:1). Then, you altered words attributed to me (Eph 4:14).

[Referring to me] "I think the technical term you're looking for is: daft."

:yawn: Ad hominem

"She doesn't hold herself to the same standards of proof..."

See:

Summary

 

[Arthur Brain]

Gloating isn't attractive without a full set of teeth. lain:

Neithers loafing....what?

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

You said that. lain: Let the reader decide. each:

Nope. Nor apostrophe, nor subject, nor tense is in the hands of readers--only whether to conform or not to standard.

:Shimei: Do you decide rules of grammer?

No. They were in place long before I arrived to utilize them.

You believe that ellipses (...) and/or brackets ( [ ] ) are not required when editing another's quote.

I never said that. I noted that in formal writing ellipses have the primary use of noting the omission of text. Informally they can be used more broadly.

I believe they are required.

You can believe that ham is a vegetable, but you can't prove that either and the reader, again, doesn't decide it.

I told you why it is unethical. each:

No, I don't believe you did more than declare it. What did I miss? Else, satire isn't unethical and I'm not responsible for whatever willful or natural encumbrance left you unable to distinguish it.

I provide the reader proof that you misquoted me

No, you didn't, because you still don't hold a definition that can be supported by authority.

I don't dispute it. :hammer:

You can't. But you try as hard as you might to mitigate and explain into weightlessness the weight of your transgressions. So that's a form of substantive dispute, even as you admit what you must.

 

[serpentdove]

"TH isn't disputing the fact he deliberately misquoted you!"

:yawn: Strawman

He justifies it (1,2,3). each:

"He did it to show you what a misquote actually is..."

That is how he justifies his actions (Eph 4:14).