(July 18, 2015 at 1:05 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you know, that used to be in my sig till it was permanently disabled... gee I wonder why?

Interesting how you still edit out the immediate next post from Rhythm where he admits his mistake and moves on, and then have the gall to act all injured and innocent, wondering why we put a stop to your little quote mines.

Incidentally, what you say here is a lie, which you still say nobody can ever provide an example of here, because Rhythm's quote wasn't in your sig at the time we took action. No, the record clearly shows that you'd put another blatantly dishonest quote mine in your sig at that point, from FaF, and it became clear then that you were just going to make a habit out of breaking forum rules in your sig.

Oh, I suppose "gee, I wonder why?" is another lie, because you've had this explained to you very recently, in fact. But nobody can provide an example of you acting dishonestly, right?

I distinctly remember supporting that sig of his in thread.  He managed to bring me new knowledge while simultaneously discrediting his argument - I appreciated the tight, square corners providence arranged on that count.  Apparently, that's the last moment he felt confident with me in conversation - as it all comes back to that 50 yard pass in days of yore, anymore.

Oh well.  

So, what have we learned from -this- thread?  Only that Huggy lacks courage of his convictions....... so, not much.

Huggy pulling a Huggy.  Classic.  

(July 18, 2015 at 12:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 1:05 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you know, that used to be in my sig till it was permanently disabled... gee I wonder why?

Interesting how you still edit out the immediate next post from Rhythm where he admits his mistake and moves on, and then have the gall to act all injured and innocent, wondering why we put a stop to your little quote mines.

Incidentally, what you say here is a lie, which you still say nobody can ever provide an example of here, because Rhythm's quote wasn't in your sig at the time we took action. No, the record clearly shows that you'd put another blatantly dishonest quote mine in your sig at that point, from FaF, and it became clear then that you were just going to make a habit out of breaking forum rules in your sig.

Oh, I suppose "gee, I wonder why?" is another lie, because you've had this explained to you very recently, in fact. But nobody can provide an example of you acting dishonestly, right?  

Oh please... it was you who claimed my sig was never banned in the first place

Also you complained about the rhythm sig on more than one occasion, the FaF sig was just a convenient excuse. You're more than welcome to demonstrate how I took faf's quote out of context, which still isn't against the rules since it explicitly states you can quote PART of someones post, nowhere does it state you must include posts that are made after the fact.

Nevertheless you claiming that faf was taken out of context is an outright lie.

(July 18, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Oh please... it was you who claimed my sig was never banned in the first place

Care to address my actual point, instead of evading?

Quote:Also you complained about the rhythm sig on more than one occasion, the FaF sig was just a convenient excuse.

I did. I still feel like that sig was against the rules; evidently the rest of the staff agreed with me, when I took an identical case to them.

Quote:You're more than welcome to demonstrate how I took faf's quote out of context, which still isn't against the rules since it explicitly states you can quote PART of someones post, nowhere does it state you must include posts that are made after the fact.

Do you just not know what quote mining is? Is that it? Here, let me help you:

Wikipedia Wrote:The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

The rest of the exchange is the context, regardless of whether it was part of one single post or not. What the hell would context be, to you, if it isn't the rest of the discussion in which a particular exchange took place? The hair you're splitting here is completely ridiculous: under your logic, if someone made one statement and then clarified it in a later post, you could still quote the first post as though it were the poster's actual position, even though the rest of his posts demonstrates that it isn't, and still not be taking his words out of context. What use does a quote mining rule have, if you can extract specific words from someone's posting history, absent of context, to make them say something they never said, without breaking it?

Quote:Nevertheless you claiming that faf was taken out of context is an outright lie.

Huggy, you can't first state that the rule doesn't cover isolating one set of words from a series of posts which alter their meaning (i.e: the context) so you didn't break the rule, and then say that you didn't take him out of context. You can't bounce from interpreting the rule in the most self-servingly literal way you can, and then assert that you never performed the action that broke the rule anyway. Those are two mutually exclusive propositions.

Oh, and as one final nail in this absurd coffin, do you know what the final sentence of that rule is, Huggy?

Quote:Staff reserve the right to consider misquotations on a case-by-case basis, weighing context and additional factors.

Who's the staff, Huggy? Who are they? Is it you?

I don't think it's you.

So, are you done pretending to believe in the turd you dropped Huggy?  Have you found your out? Or can we expect some pics?

(July 18, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The rest of the exchange is the context, regardless of whether it was part of one single post or not. What the hell would context be, to you, if it isn't the rest of the discussion in which a particular exchange took place? The hair you're splitting here is completely ridiculous: under your logic, if someone made one statement and then clarified it in a later post, you could still quote the first post as though it were the poster's actual position, even though the rest of his posts demonstrates that it isn't, and still not be taking his words out of context. What use does a quote mining rule have, if you can extract specific words from someone's posting history, absent of context, to make them say something they never said, without breaking it?

And as I have shown on MULTIPLE occasions that FaF never clarified anything he just went from one wrong answer to another. like I said, you're more than welcome to provide proof to what you're saying, or would you like me to do it?

(July 18, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And as I have shown on MULTIPLE occasions that FaF never clarified anything he just went from one wrong answer to another. like I said, you're more than welcome to provide proof to what you're saying, or would you like me to do it?

So have you figured out who the staff is, yet?

I don't need to be staff to call shenanigans..

(July 18, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't need to be staff to call shenanigans..

And you think you know more about the rules, and what they were made to accomplish, than the people who wrote them and debated what we needed them for?