Yellow alert: warning USA in danger

[Rev. Rye]

If we're talking about the signature, I'd think this part would be self-explanatory:

It's easily the most coherent thing I've read from Eclectic.

Why has this post not be targeted by the staff here? I truncated someone's profile and posted it (and mentioned that it was only part of the whole) and was told that breaks the rules. This user did the same thing; but didn't mention it was only part of a whole. It seems like I'm being held to a different standard.

So, I take it the words "this part" weren't enough to establish that the quote is just part of a larger whole?

Seriously, Old Horse?

[rocinantexyz]

So, I take it the words "this part" weren't enough to establish that the quote is just part of a larger whole?

Seriously, Old Horse?

Well that is what I did: I quoted a part, and said it was a part; then I was told that was a violation. If it is a violation when I did it; why isn't it a violation when you did this? I didn't think either would be a violation, but I'm new and that is what I'm being told. I'm extremely confused. Maybe you can explain the rules to me?

[Rev. Rye]

Maybe it's that your truncation ignored crucial information that would have answered your question.

[rocinantexyz]

Maybe it's that your truncation ignored crucial information that would have answered your question.

I don't think I did that; but let's assume I did: is that a rule?

[arewethereyet]

Maybe it's that your truncation ignored crucial information that would have answered your question.

I don't think I did that; but let's assume I did: is that a rule?

This is the last time I tell you that a quote that has been changed must be noted as such.

Period, end of discussion.

You didn't get an official warning, but your constant whining is starting to seem like disruption of the forum.  Which is also against the rules.

[arewethereyet]

Locked till staff can discuss.