Editing quotes

[chanel]

I know that editing quotes is against the rules, but is it permissable to shorten them?

Sometimes I'd like to respond only to the last post, but it may contain quotes within quotes, etc. That can get very confusing for those of us who use PDAs.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[xotoxi]

shorten

I think so...as long as you don't Breitbart the original poster.

 

[del]

i'd agree with xotoxi

 

[editec]

If one does that and by doing so one changes the spirit of the original, then that is intellectually dishonest.

However, often one is merely addressing an point within the original quote (often its just an question of a single fact, for example) that can stand alone.

In which case, it is a waste of the readers' time to post the entire quote when the objection (or comment) is addressing only that small data point.

 

[code1211]

If one does that and by doing so one changes the spirit of the original, then that is intellectually dishonest.

However, often one is merely addressing an point within the original quote (often its just an question of a single fact, for example) that can stand alone.

In which case, it is a waste of the readers' time to post the entire quote when the objection (or comment) is addressing only that small data point.

I'd agree with that, but at the same time, I hate to strip the thinking around the thought out. I like the part responded to to be highlighted and the surrounding thoughts to be included.

Many times, the writer leads up to a thought with others and stripping them away lessens the intent of the writer.

 

[xotoxi]

i'd agree with xotoxi

del is a wise man.

 

[xotoxi]

Sometimes I'd like to respond only to the last post, but it may contain quotes within quotes, etc. That can get very confusing for those of us who use PDAs.

I remove prior quotes all the time.

How about when you have a long back and forth PM with someone and it starts looking like a pyramid viewed on Google Earth...

 

[editec]

If one does that and by doing so one changes the spirit of the original, then that is intellectually dishonest.

However, often one is merely addressing an point within the original quote (often its just an question of a single fact, for example) that can stand alone.

In which case, it is a waste of the readers' time to post the entire quote when the objection (or comment) is addressing only that small data point.

I'd agree with that, but at the same time, I hate to strip the thinking around the thought out. I like the part responded to to be highlighted and the surrounding thoughts to be included.

Many times, the writer leads up to a thought with others and stripping them away lessens the intent of the writer.

Yeah, understood.

There are times when every sentence in the original is so dependent on every other, that parcing out any single sentence to comment upon is violating the spirit of the original.

OTOH, when the original is based on an assumption or fact that is debatable?

Then parcing out that fact to study and comment is probably a good idea.

And let us also acknowledge that reasonable people can still disagree about when it is fair to parce out a fact, and when it is not.

Often what some of us see as intellectual dishonesty is an honest disagreement about what is germane.



These are, of course, judgement calls we need to make in every specific case.

 

[code1211]

If one does that and by doing so one changes the spirit of the original, then that is intellectually dishonest.

However, often one is merely addressing an point within the original quote (often its just an question of a single fact, for example) that can stand alone.

In which case, it is a waste of the readers' time to post the entire quote when the objection (or comment) is addressing only that small data point.

I'd agree with that, but at the same time, I hate to strip the thinking around the thought out. I like the part responded to to be highlighted and the surrounding thoughts to be included.

Many times, the writer leads up to a thought with others and stripping them away lessens the intent of the writer.

Yeah, understood.

There are times when every sentence in the original is so dependent on every other, that parcing out any single sentence to comment upon is violating the spirit of the original.

OTOH, when the original is based on an assumption or fact that is debatable?

Then parcing out that fact to study and comment is probably a good idea.

And let us also acknowledge that reasonable people can still disagree about when it is fair to parce out a fact, and when it is not.

Often what some of us see as intellectual dishonesty is an honest disagreement about what is germane.



These are, of course, judgement calls we need to make in every specific case.

There are bomb throwers on this board, but you are not in that group. In the past, I would try to win arguments using devious techniques, but that is not a productive approach. Now I find it more fun to trot out my opinion and compare it to others.

As a result, many of my opinions have changed, softened or crystalized.

This kind of forum that potentially has ideas from people of numerous cultures and locales is an undreamed of town square even 20 years ago. I feel lucky to be able to listen in on so many with assorted ideas presented with passion and wit.

I try not to abuse those who reveal.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

As I undersand the rule, it only applies to changing the quote in such a way as to invert the point or to loose the point.

And you are not obliged to copy tons of quote. I think the minimum is just the entire sentence.

The rule is there to stop the "Fixored" stupidity that afflicts most boards. And seems to be very flexible. And I love it for that, as I hate "Fixored"

 

[MaggieMae]

If one does that and by doing so one changes the spirit of the original, then that is intellectually dishonest.

However, often one is merely addressing an point within the original quote (often its just an question of a single fact, for example) that can stand alone.

In which case, it is a waste of the readers' time to post the entire quote when the objection (or comment) is addressing only that small data point.

I absolutely hate it when someone responds to quote after quote after quote (sometimes from a variety of POSTERS!) all within one response. It's terribly difficult to follow, and I usually just skip it. Or, do it the old fashioned way and put my own comments in red.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I know that editing quotes is against the rules, but is it permissable to shorten them?

Sometimes I'd like to respond only to the last post, but it may contain quotes within quotes, etc. That can get very confusing for those of us who use PDAs.

Thank you for your feedback.

I do it all the time and I've never gotten a "nasty gram" from the mods. But of course I never try to change the meaning of the post.

 

[Modbert]

i'd agree with xotoxi

Me too.

 

[hjmick]

I want you people to buy me an Audi.

I don't know what the problem is...

 

[Valerie]

I hate to strip

 

[Paulie]

Sometimes I'd like to respond only to the last post, but it may contain quotes within quotes, etc. That can get very confusing for those of us who use PDAs.

you have a long back

That's nothing! You should see my penis!

 

[chanel]

Is Paulie related to JW? I had no idea!

 

[The Infidel]

I remove prior quotes all the time.

How about when you have a long back and forth PM with someone and it starts looking like a pyramid viewed on Google Earth...

I hate that.... its one quote, but reaches halfway down the page *ugh*

 

[The Infidel]

I had no idea!

 

[DiveCon]

shorten

I think so...as long as you don't Breitbart the original poster.

i'd agree more if you said "don't mediamatters them"

LOL