Announcement Regarding Posting Rule on Intentional Misquoting of Member Posts

[cybrsage]

Also in posts 102 and 114. But "He doesn't do it any more."

Mods, I'm a victim here, and I'm officially complaining about quote-crapping by Cybrsage. Can we issue a perma-ban, please?

Thread crapping is still under discussion in another thread. You are confused, this thread is intentional misquoting. Look at the middle-top area of your screen to find what thread you are posting in. Saves you from posting things in the wrong place.

 

[CallMeJoe]

This is part of the discussion. If altering screen names is not allowed, then it is not allowed. If it is allowed, then all forms are allowed.

Altering Screen Names really are an all or none affair.
If they are, then I can refer to Joe as CallMeJoeWhoseSlutMomBlowsHomelessMenDaily...

So the question is, is alterning screen names allowed or not?

I also am curious if the alteration of names is considered de facto personal attack, and if it is banned.

FWIW, I do not take offense if you refer to CallMeJoeWhoseSlutMomBlowsHomelessMenDaily, because I know the falsity of the term; my dead mother does no such thing. Should I therefore assume that you take offense at being called cybrstooge because you really are a Shemp?

 

[cybrsage]

I also am curious if the alteration of names is considered de facto personal attack, and if it is banned.

FWIW, I do not take offense if you refer to CallMeJoeWhoseSlutMomBlowsHomelessMenDaily, because I know the falsity of the term; my dead mother does no such thing. Should I therefore assume that you take offense at being called cybrstooge because you really are a Shemp?

I am a Laurel...the stooges were mere shadows of the greats!

 

[Ldir]

There was no intentional misquoting. Shorting a post for brevity sake is an acceptable practice. You know this, why do you pretend you do not?

Not if it alters the intent of the quote. See post #61 from Idontcare. You know this and I know why you pretend you do not. You are dishonest and a troll.

 

[sandorski]

I also am curious if the alteration of names is considered de facto personal attack, and if it is banned.

FWIW, I do not take offense if you refer to CallMeJoeWhoseSlutMomBlowsHomelessMenDaily, because I know the falsity of the term; my dead mother does no such thing. Should I therefore assume that you take offense at being called cybrstooge because you really are a Shemp?

Good idea, but I'm not homeless. :hmm:

 

[dank69]

Good idea, but I'm not homeless. :hmm:

But apparently a necrophiliac. D:

 

[sandorski]

But apparently a necrophiliac. D:

Nobody is perfect

 

[dank69]

Nobody is perfect

Hey! I'm not a nobody! But I'll take that as a compliment anyway. Thanks!

 

[shira]

There was no intentional misquoting. Shorting a post for brevity sake is an acceptable practice. You know this, why do you pretend you do not?

So, when . . .

Cybrsage continually rejects examples of his inconsistency. He continually uses a particular argument to support his position in one context, yet assails that equivalent argument when used by another against him in another context. And once backed into a corner on this, he will tell you the inconsistency is "apples and oranges." When then asked to show why it's apples and oranges, he evades by stating that the SPECIFIC USES of the two arguments were different.

For example, when you pointed out that he claimed he couldn't tell that "Faux News" was a commentary on "Fox News" yet could tell that "Cybrstooge" is a commentary on "Cybrsage," after you refute his claim that there's a logical fallacy behind your accusation, he'll eventually tell you that "Faux" is a different word than Cybrstooge."

Yes, really. That's the type of person you're dealing with here.

. . . becomes . . .

...lots of logical fallacies in use...

You also proved my points nicely, thank you very much.

. . . this, according to you, is "shorting a post for brevity sake?" This isn't an example of intentional misquoting?"

"Shorting" a post means quoting only the portion you wish to address (or including a larger quote but highlighting certain portions). You could even use a convention such as

. . . <long post> . . . snip!

But what YOU do is replace a post with your alleged interpretation. You replace an actual post with your straw-man version of the post, as if your allegation is established fact. When, in fact, your allegation is almost always incorrect.

Enjoy your vacation.

 

[Idontcare]

No sane person would have any question as to that they were altering my screen name as a personal attack. Come on, do YOU even entertain the thought that this is not the case?

No sane person would not be capable of jumping to conclusions if they were in a position where jumping to a conclusion was necessary.

I, however, did not feel I needed to make any assumptions at that time in regards to your specific position and thinking.

I had the luxury of being able to take the time to engage you in conversation by way of asking you questions that would only help serve to better flesh out the crux of your concern.

Why make assumptions when I can just go straight to the source and ask them directly?

But yes, no doubt, if I was forced to make a judgement call on a moments notice without the benefit of accessing you and your opinion on the issue then I would be compelled to consider the possibility that the username was altered as a means to insult you.

This is part of the discussion. If altering screen names is not allowed, then it is not allowed. If it is allowed, then all forms are allowed.

Altering Screen Names really are an all or none affair.
If they are, then I can refer to Joe as CallMeJoeWhoseSlutMomBlowsHomelessMenDaily...

So the question is, is alterning screen names allowed or not?

That is an excellent question. You know what my response to it is - we should put up a poll and determine whether or not the community feels it is an issue. But we'll only have one poll up at a time, so it needs to wait its turn in the priority queue.

You will note that the current queue has "Personal Attacks/Insults" coming up next.

One thing that we will different in that poll is we will first have a poll to define what posting actions are going to be considered "unacceptable insults".

Changing a member's screenname as a means to insult them can be one of the items to vote on. That seems very reasonable to me. What do you think about such a path to resolution?

 

[JSt0rm]

Icarealot,

I think changing peoples screen names is ok to do. BUT if you decide on a pole to see if its ok then I expect the flow charts to be updated.

 

[shira]

Thread crapping is still under discussion in another thread. You are confused, this thread is intentional misquoting. Look at the middle-top area of your screen to find what thread you are posting in. Saves you from posting things in the wrong place.

Can you read? Thread-crapping is messing up a thread intentionally. Quote-crapping is messing up a quote intentionally. Are you really this stupid?

 

[cybrsage]

..

 

[cybrsage]

That is an excellent question. You know what my response to it is - we should put up a poll and determine whether or not the community feels it is an issue. But we'll only have one poll up at a time, so it needs to wait its turn in the priority queue.

You will note that the current queue has "Personal Attacks/Insults" coming up next.

One thing that we will different in that poll is we will first have a poll to define what posting actions are going to be considered "unacceptable insults".

Changing a member's screenname as a means to insult them can be one of the items to vote on. That seems very reasonable to me. What do you think about such a path to resolution?

I did laugh when I heard your response is a poll on it.

Good path to resolution. IMO, altering a screen name should not be allowed, as it usually only ever done to attack the poster.

 

[cybrsage]

So, when . . .




. . . becomes . . .




. . . this, according to you, is "shorting a post for brevity sake?" This isn't an example of intentional misquoting?"

Yes. I thought I made the clear the first time I said it.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[shira]

Yes. I thought I made the clear the first time I said it.

You've certainly made it clear what you THINK you're doing. But what you're actually doing is replacing what someone else wrote with your INTERPRETATION of what they wrote. What you are doing is EXACTLY what this thread is about - "intentional mis-quoting" - and you are by far the very worst offender.

Stop doing it.

 

[cybrsage]

You've certainly made it clear what you THINK you're doing.

Then don't ask what I think if you already know..and if you do, do not be shocked to get the answer you already knew. Not very hard, regardless of which path you choose to take.