Quote Function Clarification

[Gunny]

Just to clarify ...

There is no written rule in regard to the quote function. Common sense usually prevails in such cases. In the past, it has been acceptable for people to alter a word or a name and highlight either by bolding it or changing the color to draw attention to it. THAT is reasonable and harmless fun.

Partial quoting another post is also permissable, so that a member need only address what he/she wishes.

Completely altering someone else's post is taking it too far. Bearing in mind the definition of "quote," altering the content of someone else's post renders that definition null and void, and for people who join threads late or are notorious skimmers, it can mislead them as to what the original statement was meant to say.

In an effort to compromise, if a member alters the content of a quote, it will be permissable so long as a statement in a color other than black makes not of such a change. While I realize this takes away from the desired effect, it's this way, or NO altering of quotes will be permitted whatsoever.

I don't want to make rules where there are none. It's up to you, the members of USMB, to ensure that isn't required. I appreciate your cooperation.

Gunny

 

[Ravi]

Just to clarify ...

Liberals rock. Not only are they the only intelligent posters at USMB, but they also never intentionally misquote the wingnuts.

Gunny

Totally agree.

 

[Dogger]

Just to clarify ...

****** delusional rant deleted ******

Gunny

Works for me. Is that what you had in mind?

 

[Gunny]

Totally agree.

Hate to point this out to you, but it's because of a liberal that this thread is even necessary.

And you just hold your breath waiting for THAT spew to come out of my mouth. I don't see one side being any more full of shit than the other around here.

 

[Gunny]

Works for me. Is that what you had in mind?

How about "original quote modified/deleted"? I'm not sure why it is you wish to prove you are a condescending elitist, but that's about all you're presenting yourself as by doing such a thing.

I would prefer that on the upper portion of the board, that topics be addressed and insults kept to a minimum. If you feel you must insult someone, that is THE purpose for the Flame Zone.

What's going to happen here is what I keep trying to avoid. *You* (the universal you as in USMB members) are going to force us to start strictly enforcing rules and making no exceptions because *you* can't handle the responsibility that goes with the privilege of free speech.

The intent of USMB is to provide a forum for political debate, not personal pissing contests.

 

[Dogger]

How about "original quote modified/deleted"? I'm not sure why it is you wish to prove you are a condescending elitist, but that's about all you're presenting yourself as by doing such a thing.

I would prefer that on the upper portion of the board, that topics be addressed and insults kept to a minimum. If you feel you must insult someone, that is THE purpose for the Flame Zone.

What's going to happen here is what I keep trying to avoid. *You* (the universal you as in USMB members) are going to force us to start strictly enforcing rules and making no exceptions because *you* can't handle the responsibility that goes with the privilege of free speech.

The intent of USMB is to provide a forum for political debate, not personal pissing contests.

When I get attacked for being intelligent, condescension is an appropriate response. What else can I do when I routinely encounter fools who think my intelligence discredits my point of view?

Free speech is meant to be pushed right up to the line. The SCOTUS even allows one to go over the line because they don’t want to discourage speech (New York Times v. Sullivan).

What you and Ravir did to each others quotes is easily distinguishabe from what I did to yours. If I ever change a quote in a manner that implies someone said something they did not, kick me out. When it's clear the words are mine, let free speech rule the day.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When I get attacked for being intelligent, condescension is an appropriate response. What else can I do when I routinely encounter fools who think my intelligence discredits my point of view?

Free speech is meant to be pushed right up to the line. The SCOTUS even allows one to go over the line because they don’t want to discourage speech (New York Times v. Sullivan).

What you and Ravir did to each others quotes is easily distinguishabe from what I did to yours. If I ever change a quote in a manner that implies someone said something they did not, kick me out. When it's clear the words are mine, let free speech rule the day.

You are an idiot. You "quote" and then delete everything that was said. You do it because you have no argument. You do it to mislead and to belittle. A "quote" has a purpose, and your abuse is not part of that purpose.

You want to put "blah blah blah" down do so in your post, not by deleting quoted text in an effort to mislead or insult.

For being so smart you are as stupid as they come.

Notice how I made my point with OUT altering what you said? Altering others words is a sign of weakness, you are a loser.

 

[jreeves]

When I get attacked for being intelligent, condescension is an appropriate response. What else can I do when I routinely encounter fools who think my intelligence discredits my point of view?

Free speech is meant to be pushed right up to the line. The SCOTUS even allows one to go over the line because they don’t want to discourage speech (New York Times v. Sullivan).

What you and Ravir did to each others quotes is easily distinguishabe from what I did to yours. If I ever change a quote in a manner that implies someone said something they did not, kick me out. When it's clear the words are mine, let free speech rule the day.

I think it shows your obvious attempts of avoiding the issues. Blah,Blah or Yada,Yada....is alot easier to respond to than the actual post. But if you want to look like an idiot go ahead, USMB moderators may feel differently though.

 

[Dogger]

I think it shows your obvious attempts of avoiding the issues. Blah,Blah or Yada,Yada....is alot easier to respond to than the actual post. But if you want to look like an idiot go ahead, USMB moderators may feel differently though.

I did it whenever I thought the original post did not merit repeating. The intent was clear, and purely dismissive.

If you had the ability to understand my writings, you would know that I don't avoid issues, though I often ignore the ignorant. Notice how I ignored RGS's post just before yours?

Using the quote function still allowed anyone to find the actual post without hunting. If I don't want to repeat a piece of crap, should I just let people hunt for it instead?

 

[Gunny]

When I get attacked for being intelligent, condescension is an appropriate response. What else can I do when I routinely encounter fools who think my intelligence discredits my point of view?

Free speech is meant to be pushed right up to the line. The SCOTUS even allows one to go over the line because they don’t want to discourage speech (New York Times v. Sullivan).

What you and Ravir did to each others quotes is easily distinguishabe from what I did to yours. If I ever change a quote in a manner that implies someone said something they did not, kick me out. When it's clear the words are mine, let free speech rule the day.

1. Intelligence neither makes one better, nor necessarily smarter than anyone else. Intelligence misguided or misused is no better than ignorance. I don't see you being attacked for being intelligent. I see you getting attacked for saying you are intelligent.

Trust when I say this ... it isn't intelligence that discredits your POV.

2. I will remind you that this is a privately owned message board, not the Supreme Court nor a public forum. Freedom of speech is limited to what the owner of this board does and does not allow.

When an individual's freedom of expression is detrimental to the good order and discipline of this board, the then it is the individual who must conform for the overall good.

In my defense, I haven't seen any message boards that were more liberal in regard to freedom of expression than this one. I really only ask that you express yourself in forums provided for different forms of expression and even that is only loosely enforced.

3. I responded to Ravir's post. I didn't change anything in it.

I'm not here to kick you out. I don't approach this board or its members in anything close to that. I'm here to try and keep a semblance of order and try to make the place enjoyable for EVERYONE, not any specific individuals.

There aren't moderators nor admins micromanaging everyone's every post, and NO ONE has been banned for their political beliefs since I became admin here. Both are problems most of us have encountered on boards in the past and I'm sure most of us don't like it. The fact that this discussion is even taking place wouldn't go on most of them.

I'm not blaming you nor holding it against you that you pushed the envelope. I'm just the one that lets you know when you push too far. I have gone so far as to compromise with you on the quote thing, but that's as far as I'm going to go. The only other option will be no altering them at all which means I have to add another rule which I really detest doing. That would be the proverbial ruining it for everyone because of the actions of an individual person.

I hope this clears up any questions you might have. I don't expect you to agree with me but I see the potential for little to no good and a LOT of harm if and when some others start following your lead.