Site needs to fix the ability for people to alter other peoples quotes when they reply.

[Blaster]

Everybody does this. You are responding to a portion of a long winded quote -- a part of that you may disagree

Too many posts are aggravating because of their length.

 

[toobfreak]

Site needs to fix the ability for people to alter other peoples quotes when they reply.​

Look, SC, let me make this simple for you as a literary-trained rule-infused person:

As per the rules, you CAN:

1. Truncate a post to the salient part(s) to which you are responding so long as you do not alter (add to nor subtract from it) putting words in it that you did not say.
2. Quote material from the linked source to which you are responding to which the OP linked.

As per the rules, you CANNOT:

1. Put words in someone's mouth they never said nor linked to entirely changing its meaning in an obviously salacious way or intention, to cause harm thereof.

If someone merely trims your comment to the statement or words or link you posted or said which he wishes to respond to, no harm no foul. That saves server space and makes it easier for others to read and follow.

If someone is outright quoting you on saying something offensive that you never even said, you have cause to report them.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Look, SC, let me make this simple for you as a literary-trained rule-infused person:

As per the rules, you CAN:

1. Truncate a post to the salient part(s) to which you are responding so long as you do not alter (add to nor subtract from it) putting words in it that you did not say.
2. Quote material from the linked source to which you are responding to which the OP linked.

As per the rules, you CANNOT:

1. Put words in someone's mouth they never said nor linked to entirely changing its meaning in an obviously salacious way or intention, to cause harm thereof.

If someone merely trims your comment to the statement or words or link you posted or said which he wishes to respond to, no harm no foul. That saves server space and makes it easier for others to read and follow.

If someone is outright quoting you on saying something offensive that you never even said, you have cause to report them.

The weren't cutting down my words, they were attributing to me what the journalist declared in their story at Fox News. Would you prefer we dont include the first few sentences of the media link which I provided as a courtesy? You can provide details from the linked source but it should be a general reply to the thread NOT a reply with quotes since quoting me directly isnt accurate, he quoted the MSM link.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Shortening another person's quote is not in violation of the rules here.

I don't think inventing quotes and adding bits is though.

I've had a Lefty and Righty do it.

 

[hjmick]

.

You fix that by reporting the person doing the "editing".

It is in violation of TOS to edit someone else's post.

Don't whine at the whole board. Report it.


.

Actually...

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box or alter the member names in "link-back" text.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And Guidelines...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[toobfreak]

The weren't cutting down my words, they were attributing to me what the journalist declared in their story at Fox News.

What is wrong with that? I do that all the time. Most OP's are nothing but a rehashing of bits taken from the linked article, and often, there is something in the linked article I find more worth commenting on than anything the OP said himself, especially as this is the /source/ material. When you link an article, that is like you are endorsing its contents, so if someone quotes part of the article you linked to, whether or not it was something YOU stated directly in the OP, what is the problem?

In eight years, you are the first I've ever seen complain about being quoted something in an article around which YOU based a thread. Be glad that people actually bothered to read the article to quote from it and stop being pedantic.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What is wrong with that? I do that all the time. Most OP's are nothing but a rehashing of bits taken from the linked article, and often, there is something in the linked article I find more worth commenting on than anything the OP said himself, especially as this is the /source/ material. When you link an article, that is like you are endorsing its contents, so if someone quotes part of the article you linked to, whether or not it was something YOU stated directly in the OP, what is the problem?

In eight years, you are the first I've ever seen complain about being quoted something in an article around which YOU based a thread. Be glad that people actually bothered to read the article to quote from it and stop being pedantic.

Providing a link to an article is an implicit endorsement of the author and it's contents?

You may want to rethink that suggestion. News is news and I generally stick to mainstream sources and I can attest that I do not agree with every article I present, it is for information, dissemination and discussion. Without it, the forum dies and we are all forced to operate exclusively on social media for similar interactions.

 

[Rawley]

That isn't my quote, it's a quote from the story.

You pulled it out of the story and put it in your OP - meaning you thought that was the important part of a very long story.

He didn't do anything wrong

 

[shockedcanadian]

You pulled it out of the story and put it in your OP - meaning you thought that was the important part of a very long story.

He didn't do anything wrong

I provided my own feedback and then I posted the link. Beneath the link I provided the first few sentences of the article as a courtesy for people.

Any degree of importance would have been random as it was the beginning of the article and not a subjective assessment of the value of said details.

Regardless, even if I had taken random snippets, they were from the article, not from my own personal journalism on the subject matter of the article.

 

[toobfreak]

Providing a link to an article is an implicit endorsement of the author and it's contents?

You are using it as YOUR source material upon which to base a thread. Please tell me which articles you have used which you do not agree with yet used to base a thread on?
And who said anything about endorsing any author? Apparently you thought enough of the linked article upon which to base your thread and link us to it.
Damn, dude, don't you get it? There is only one quote system here. Whether the respondent uses it to quote you or something you linked to, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

You may want to rethink that suggestion.

You may want to rethink this entire thread. Nothing was /altered/ here so even your premise is false. Every time I start to feel sorry for the things you ***** about in Canada, you remind me that maybe you deserve your police state. Glow the F up. No rule was violated here and if you complain to a mod about being quoted for something you linked to, they will just laugh in your face.

PS: Remind me to stop reading all crap you post here, you are getting tiresome.

 

[shockedcanadian]

You are using it as YOUR source material upon which to base a thread. Please tell me which articles you have used which you do not agree with yet used to base a thread on?
And who said anything about endorsing any author? Apparently you thought enough of the linked article upon which to base your thread and link us to it.
Damn, dude, don't you get it? There is only one quote system here. Whether the respondent uses it to quote you or something you linked to, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?


You may want to rethink this entire thread. Nothing was /altered/ here so your premise id false. Every time I start to feel sorry for the things you ***** about in Canada, you remind me that maybe you deserve your police state. Glow the F up. No rule was violated here and if you complain to a mod about being quoted for something you linked to, they will just laugh in your face.

PS: Remind me to stop reading all crap you post here, you are getting tiresome.

If you post a link to a story about a terror attack and in the contents of that link there is a quote from a terrorist regarding something he posted on social media or said during the attack, are you telling me that if you copy and paste that under my name in the reply that it is an accurate assessment because it's origin was my source material?

I've never done that to anyone who I have quoted that I can recall and if I did it would have been purely accidental. Why would I assign a quote to a persons username.

This isn't whiny, this is just common courtesy and accuracy because I don't want to have to be concerned that within the details of a link I post there is a situation such as the one above in which a statement is attributed to me when I didn't say it.

This is the internet and a serious terror attack occurred, misconstruing what someone says as opposed to the news they post is not pleasing to see.

 

[Rawley]

I provided my own feedback and then I posted the link. Beneath the link I provided the first few sentences of the article as a courtesy for people.

Any degree of importance would have been random as it was the beginning of the article and not a subjective assessment of the value of said details.

Regardless, even if I had taken random snippets, they were from the article, not from my own personal journalism on the subject matter of the article.

It's not random You chose what parts of a very long article to pull out and incorporate into your post.. When someone hits Reply, the story will not show up, but what you've put in your post will.

Deal with it, Thunk didn't do anything wrong, not even close.

 

[Thunk]

I've never done that to anyone who I have quoted that I can recall

I assure you...YOU HAVE!

Because there's no other way to do it! There is nothing in the quote function to differentiate between what you typed and what you quoted from the article.

THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT...short of typing a sentence saying "the above quote was from the article OP linked...not the OP"...which I am not going to do.

I can't even believe this was an issue...let alone STILL being argued!

The court of public opinion has ruled against you.
The rules are against you.
The court of appeals has ruled against you.
The US supreme court has ruled against you.

It's over. Let it go.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I assure you...YOU HAVE!

Because there's no other way to do it! There is nothing in the quote function to differentiate between what you typed and what you quoted from the article.

THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT...short of typing a sentence saying "the above quote was from the article OP linked...not the OP"...which I am not going to do.

I can't even believe this was an issue...let alone STILL being argued!

The court of public opinion has ruled against you.
The rules are against you.
The court of appeals has ruled against you.
The US supreme court has ruled against you.

It's over. Let it go.

See my quote above? If you had posted a link and the first few sentences of the article, it would show above in my response as it does now. In the case in which I was quoted, it only showed a quote from the article.

I let it go. Others responded as you did now. There is a legitimate reason why I am raising this issue. You wouldn't want something say, a terrorist or criminal said being attributed to you, would you?

 

[Thunk]

If you had posted a link and the first few sentences of the article,

More effort for me and my point would have been lost in the length of useless info.

 

[ChristisKing]

This thread is stupid. I honestly don't know why it hasn't been closed yet.

 

[Arlette]

See my quote above? If you had posted a link and the first few sentences of the article, it would show above in my response as it does now. In the case in which I was quoted, it only showed a quote from the article.

I let it go. Others responded as you did now. There is a legitimate reason why I am raising this issue. You wouldn't want something say, a terrorist or criminal said being attributed to you, would you?

Is that how the arguments with your wife went? No wonder she beat you up.

 

[cnm]

The site should still not allow such functionality, it should be strict with a forced full quote of the prior post.

Who could be bothered quoting all that rubbish, let alone expecting people to reread it?

 

[katsteve2012]

It looks like this thread has run it's course at this point.

For future reference, it likely would have saved a little time here had a PM been sent to the entire moderator group for clarification.

If there is any need for further explanation regarding this topic, please feel free to do so.
Closed