A practice that I need to talk about here...

[W1GUH]

There's a common, shall we say, "clever construction" that's used here that really grates on my nerves. It's the practice of quoting someone and then changing the words that you're atributing to the original poster. The end result is that the quotee has had his/her words changed by the quoter without permission. IMHO, this is not something that should be done. Is it really that much harder to leave the quote alone and OWN the words YOU want to say by saying something like, "I'd say [x] would be more precise", or something like that.

This is a very public forum and, I don't really want someone who doesn't know this particular group to read words that I never wrote or said.

Am I the only one that has a problem when I see myself quoted wrong because the quoter used that "clever construction?"

[NQ6U]

Am I the only one that has a problem when I see myself quoted wrong because the quoter used that "clever construction?"

Yep, probably. "Fixed that for you" has been an Internet tradition since the early days of Usenet. Like it or not, it's here to stay.

[ki4itv]

I clearly see your point.
Although it is common practice, on The Island especially, to italicize or embolden the changed words with a note indicating that it has been changed. (fixed that for ya')
Never really gave it much thought. :dunno:

[X-Rated]

I usually see people posting the change in BOLD to show the change specifically. I know teh ZED changed the rules to not allow changing the quotes. People can make their own rules. I personally don't have any issue with that per se, but I do see people taking real quotes out of context and re-contexting them with their own meaning. This is particularly easier to do to those whose second language is English. But, we live in the US, and you have to expect what you would expect.

[w3bny]

Am I the only one that has a problem when I see myself quoted wrong because the quoter used that "clever construction?" Fixed it for you

Heh....did I do that? :evil:

[WØTKX]

I sure as hell wouldn't attribute a change like that to the original post being quoted, just give credit (or discredit) to the "quotee". As long as it is done in a manner that shows the changes quite clearly, and the "quotee" acknowledges it was done, where's the beef? :dunno:

That being said, I'm not in the habit of doing that kind of "edited quote" myself...
I tend to find a relevant cartoon, eh? ;)

[W3WN]

< snip >
Am I the only one that has a problem when I see myself quoted wrong because the quoter used that "clever construction?"Nope.

[rot]

Well I think in the grand scheme of things that one can only be held responsible for the notes that one post and is stamped under their own username. I surely would not go frothy over a nested quote or use it to poo poo the nested source as such. Go back to the original as in tracking a reference if you want go jiggy on it. Even at that, editing occurs and plays havoc on the whole I said you said deal. At least on this forum 99% of the time it goes to escalate goofing off...which is cool, but it is duely noted.
My pet peeve is to have my text nested in and pre or postambled by a picture of a fat ugly human being wearing skimmpy attire and carrying mispelled signs of little wit. But hey..that's just me.
Dontdissmeman,NC
rot

[X-Rated]

Well I think in the grand scheme of things that one can only be held responsible for the notes that one post and is stamped under their own username. I surely would not go frothy over a nested quote or use it to poo poo the nested source as such. Go back to the original as in tracking a reference if you want go jiggy on it. Even at that, editing occurs and plays havoc on the whole I said you said deal. At least on this forum 99% of the time it goes to escalate goofing off...which is cool, but it is duely noted.
My pet peeve is to have my text nested in and pre or postambled by a picture of a fat ugly human being wearing skimmpy attire and carrying mispelled signs of little wit. But hey..that just me.
Dontdissmeman,NC
rot

What he said except nothing really bothers me.


Where did I put that medication now?

[W1GUH]

So, then, it's the consensus here that it's just fine to change people's words? IMHO..."it's been done since time immemorial" or "clearly marked (bold...italicized)" are two practices that shoulda been put to bed when the internet became so widespread and public.

And, maddeningly (but because of internet arrogance...I guess to be expected) seems the only way I have of NOT being mis-quoted is to never post?

Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners.

[rot]

So, then, it's the consensus here that it's just fine to change people's words? IMHO..."it's been done since time immemorial" or "clearly marked (bold...italicized)" are two practices that shoulda been put to bed when the internet became so widespread and public.

And, maddeningly (but because of internet arrogance...I guess to be expected) seems the only way I have of NOT being mis-quoted is to never post?

Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners.

Well not totally..the crap that ZED got into where mods would change post within one's own signature as was done to George, is total bullshit. No place for that crap by any stretch of the imagination. That is where I lost all respect for that place and have remained in opinion to date.
rot

[KC2UGV]

So, then, it's the consensus here that it's just fine to change people's words? IMHO..."it's been done since time immemorial" or "clearly marked (bold...italicized)" are two practices that shoulda been put to bed when the internet became so widespread and public.

And, maddeningly (but because of internet arrogance...I guess to be expected) seems the only way I have of NOT being mis-quoted is to never post?

Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners.

The internet is a social construct with it's own norms and acceptable practices. It's expected that one will either:

* Follow the thread, to see what exactly was said.
OR
* Back track to the original post, which is very easy on this forum (Hit the "Double back" icon in the quote)

[X-Rated]

...
* Back track to the original post, which is very easy on this forum (Hit the "Double back" icon in the quote)

But what if it double backs to the wrong quote like this one does?

[W1GUH]

The internet is a social construct with it's own norms and acceptable practices. It's expected that one will either:

* Follow the thread, to see what exactly was said.
OR
* Back track to the original post, which is very easy on this forum (Hit the "Double back" icon in the quote)

Oh? And whom is this person that "expects" it, and does such person have any sort of personal standards of behavior that didn't come from hi-tech?

[W1GUH]

But what if it double backs to the wrong quote like this one does?

He probably left out the "secret" step that takes you to the correct place.

[X-Rated]

Oh? And whom is this person that "expects" it, and does such person have any sort of personal standards of behavior that didn't come from hi-tech?

Wait a minute. There has to be more to this than just changing a quote, marking where the quote was changed and stating that you have changed the quote. What am I missing here?

[X-Rated]

He probably left out the "secret" step that takes you to the correct place.

I am always playing devil's advocate. Eh?

[W3WN]

So, then, it's the consensus here that it's just fine to change people's words? IMHO..."it's been done since time immemorial" or "clearly marked (bold...italicized)" are two practices that shoulda been put to bed when the internet became so widespread and public.

And, maddeningly (but because of internet arrogance...I guess to be expected) seems the only way I have of NOT being mis-quoted is to never post?

Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners.I don't know about the consensus, but as far as I'm concerned, just because it can be done, and is being done, doesn't make it right. So no, it's not right, and it should not be condoned, IMHO.

[W3WN]

The internet is a social construct with it's own norms and acceptable practices. It's expected that one will either:

* Follow the thread, to see what exactly was said.
OR
* Back track to the original post, which is very easy on this forum (Hit the "Double back" icon in the quote)This is a practice that should not be accepted.

[KB3LAZ]

Dont you know that we are all only pixels? Since we are on the internet we are not real. ..I hear that all of the time.

That aside..Ive been quoted and the words crossed out or what not and new things added. Meh..never really gave it much though.

[W3WN]

Dont you know that we are all only pixels? Since we are on the internet we are not real. ..I hear that all of the time.

That aside..Ive been quoted and the words crossed out or what not and new things added. Meh..never really gave it much though.Still doesn't make it right.

More than a few times (though fortunately off shore), the very people who change my words to suit what they want everyone to think I said, then use those changed quotes against me, as if I said them. Like a certain ham based in Texas who is waiting for the packet network to make a comeback.

[X-Rated]

People read what they want to read anyway. I see people dangle their participles around and then that is quoted and changed to mean something totally different by someone else. Like this sentence...


More than a few times (though fortunately off shore), the very people who change my words to suit what they want everyone to think I said, then use those changed quotes against me, as if I said them.

I can pick out the noun (I) and a verb (said) and a direct object (quotes) and finish off your statement (against me) and I have you admitting that you said quotes against you. I know you didn't mean it. Others here know you didn't mean it, but it is something you actually said. This, to me is worse than stating you changed a quote and then changed it. But this rephrasing is allowed. Seems like anything should be allowed.

[WØTKX]

Again, I'm not normally a fan of the practice, but I may have done it a few times in jest, which is all anybody (here) ever does. However I fail to see how quoting, and obviously editing that quote, would cause "my own words to be used against me". Since the quote is NOT the original post, and if edited in an obvious fashion, why should it matter?

It does NOT change the original post, so how can the original words be used against you if they are obviously changed?

But I (we) get it, so don't do that in answer to your posts...

[KJ3N]

Like a certain ham based in Texas who is waiting for the packet network to make a comeback.

You mean a certain delusional ham from Tex-ass.....

[X-Rated]

You mean a certian delusional ham from Tex-ass.....

Yeah. I was WB5L in a former life living in Austin.

[W3WN]

Yeah. I was WB5L in a former life living in Austin.But you're here on the beach, sipping a tall cold something with a funny little umbrella in it. You're not, um, off shore.

[W3WN]

Again, I'm not normally a fan of the practice, but I may have done it a few times in jest, which is all anybody (here) ever does. However I fail to see how quoting, and obviously editing that quote, would cause "my own words to be used against me". Since the quote is NOT the original post, and if edited in an obvious fashion, why should it matter?

It does NOT change the original post, so how can the original words be used against you if they are obviously changed?

But I (we) get it, so don't do that in answer to your posts...I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read was not what I meant. Got it.

[KC2UGV]

But what if it double backs to the wrong quote like this one does?

Then, it's not been confirmed the quoted person actually stated it. It's the primary rule of the internet: Just because you read it here, doesn't mean it's accurate.


Oh? And whom is this person that "expects" it, and does such person have any sort of personal standards of behavior that didn't come from hi-tech?

lrn2lurkmoar.

You wouldn't move to a new city, go to the next city council meeting, and start demanding changes, would you? No, you take the time to learn how the community works, and THEN after paying attention to the goings-on, you start trying to change things.

It's The September that Never Ends: September 1993.


This is a practice that should not be accepted.

Says who? You, or the community?

If this community says it shouldn't happen, then that becomes the community norm. However, it's obviously not clear that this community rejects it as being normal, and acceptable behavior.

[KG4CGC]

Bill Clinton was the first Black President.

[X-Rated]

Bill Clinton was the first Barack President.

Fixed that for ya.

[KB3LAZ]

Fixed that for ya.

See this example is one that I would find humorous. Intentional edit but made apparent as well as being easy to see that the OP didnt really post it. Idk maybe its just me but again I dont see the big deal.

OTOH, I have seen cases on other sites where a poster will quote someone 100-200 posts back and edit their quote to say as they wish without any indication that such was done. Therefore making it seem that they are the words of the op, intentionally I might add. I suppose I seem them as two separate issues. One being harmful and the other being comical.

In the end what one finds acceptable another may not. But as many forums as I frequent, mod, admin, etc...comedy of this nature does seem to be a social norm. Be it right or wrong is beside the point when defining that. Im not defending it but rather point out that fact.

Many times something done among friends becomes unacceptable among strangers. Just a random thought..

[ki4itv]

<snip.>...

Many times something done among friends becomes unacceptable among strangers. Just a random thought..

Well said. This is precisely where I'm getting hung up on this perceived problem.

I don't remember it being brought up directly in this thread, But now I'm wondering if the concern about this practice has more to do with search engines and how they comb through content. Google doesn't come around and capture recorded snippets of your daily "real world" interactions (with your friends) and then offer them up for perusal by anyone with the time (or a reason) to look.

Anyone care to clarify if this is the root concern of your opposition?

[ki4itv]

So, then, it's the consensus here that it's just fine to change people's words? IMHO..."it's been done since time immemorial" or "clearly marked (bold...italicized)" are two practices that shoulda been put to bed when the internet became so widespread and public.

And, maddeningly (but because of internet arrogance...I guess to be expected) seems the only way I have of NOT being mis-quoted is to never post?

Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners.

(emphasis added by ki4itv, out of confusion as to whether I should snip the content not relevant to my post, in a effort to save bandwidth)

Now that I know it bothers some of you, a mental note will remind me to not take such a liberty with those who find it offensive and not just the playful banter it truly beez.

[WØTKX]

Oh, If I ever do it now, the disclaimer will be longer than the quote. :mrgreen:

[NQ6U]

I'm gonna start doing more than ever now.

[NA4BH]

I'm gonna start doing more than ever now.

You inspire me, I will do it too.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_h3YTnQiCgy4/TSdYMJqISUI/AAAAAAAABVg/KB4l-25S2mY/s400/64599_160482493970475_153544431330948_427874_14807 27_n.jpg

[KJ3N]

You inspire me, I will do it too.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_h3YTnQiCgy4/TSdYMJqISUI/AAAAAAAABVg/KB4l-25S2mY/s400/64599_160482493970475_153544431330948_427874_14807 27_n.jpg

Peggy!

[kb2vxa]

Well, methinks they should follow my lead. I always post the exact quote just above the edited "fixed it for ya" version.

"Hi tech is the bane of good form and manners."
Like the song goes, it ain't necessarily so.