Inserting Letters And Words In Others' Quotes

[shart_attack]

Is it still against the rules here to put letters and words in another poster's quote box?

It used to be against the USMB Code of Conduct, for example, to make a post like that, to the best of my understanding.

For example, if someone other than the poster who actually said the quote changes say, this ...

i just could not find the resolve to bring myself to evolve to reading that sharty book.

to this ...

xxx

... is that now acceptable?

 

[deltex1]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

 

[shart_attack]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

What's stupid, bro?

 

[norwegen]

Forgetting your coffee on the roof of your car when you drive off is stupid.

 

[deltex1]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

What's stupid, bro?

Changing someone else's words...

 

[Pogo]

It's absolutely unacceptable. I consider anyone doing that to be committing sacrilege. I report them to the authorities and trust that they are persecuted to the fullest extent of the laws. Preferably with torture.

Did someone/something suggest it's OK now?

 

[Tresha91203]

Did the insert make sense? I ask because on my tablet, I have caught myself starting to type where not intending. If you notice a random word or letter at the start, then a quote, then the response, that is the mobile device gremlin. It has something to do w pics/graphics loading on the page I think. At times, that random word/letter is inside the quote box. I think the poster starts to post, then the page shifts at the load completion and you have to scroll down and start over.

If it is an intentional change to make it look like you said something you didn't, boooooo. I'd report, and I'm not normally a tattler (learned that from twin brother early on).

 

[Ropey]

The only time I see it as acceptable is when the person makes a mistake and responds inside of a quote without changing the words.

It's messing with your free speech otherwise.

Well, unless staff do it in their moderation duties and leave it clear.

 

[norwegen]

The only time I see it as acceptable is when the person makes a mistake and responds inside of a quote without changing the words.

Get real, Dude. Who'd be dumb enough to do that?

 

[shart_attack]

The only time I see it as acceptable is when the person makes a mistake and responds inside of a quote without changing the words.

It's messing with your free speech otherwise.

Well, unless staff do it in their moderation duties and leave it clear.

Yeah, ain't no shame in that.

Everybody here does that occasionally, whether it's incidental or intentional.

 

[asaratis]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

What's stupid, bro?

Changing someone else's words...

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

 

[shart_attack]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

What's stupid, bro?

Changing someone else's words...

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

Yeah?

And what about their subject-verb disagreements? Like:

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

to ...

I do correct their spellings occasionally...

Just sayin', bro.

 

[asaratis]

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

Yeah?

And what about their subject-verb disagreements? Like:

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

to ...

I do correct their spellings occasionally...

Just sayin', bro.

Touche!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So long as the change is obvious and is not meant to alter the intent of the quoted material.

 

[asaratis]

So long as the change is obvious and is not meant to alter the intent of the quoted material.

A spelling correction might not be obvious but still does not change the meaning of the post...unless a particular misspelling was intentionally posted....as when "Jews" is posted as "Jooooos". In that case, I leave the anti-Semitic tone alone. It leaves the display of the poster's stupidity intact.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It is stupid...kill their goat.

What's stupid, bro?

Changing someone else's words...

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

Yeah?

And what about their subject-verb disagreements? Like:

I do correct their spelling occasionally...

to ...

I do correct their spellings occasionally...

Just sayin', bro.

Their spelling certainly COULD be correct , depending on context.

 

[shart_attack]

Their spelling certainly COULD be correct , depending on context.

Not in the context in which he used it, nope. Sorry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Their spelling certainly COULD be correct , depending on context.

Not in the context in which he used it, nope. Sorry.

It has also been accepted when the purpose is clearly to mock and not to ascribe to the quoted person the words or characters added.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Their spelling certainly COULD be correct , depending on context.

Not in the context in which he used it, nope. Sorry.

Well, as long as we are talking about grammar.

Your sentence should have read

Nope, sorry, not in the context that he used it in.

Just sayin bro.

 

[shart_attack]

Their spelling certainly COULD be correct , depending on context.

Not in the context in which he used it, nope. Sorry.

Well, as long as we are talking about grammar.

Your sentence should have read

Nope, sorry, not in the context that he used it in.

Just sayin bro.

Wrong again, Copernicus.

Obviously, your English teachers never taught you that it's bad grammar to end sentences in prepositions.

Sorry.