The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

Hah, and he didn't even include the first sentence of my response in his signature.

But seriously, at what point is this kind of blatant dishonesty against the rules?

Well, I'd suggest that Huggy get acquainted with the rules, wherein quote mining is definitely not okay. No matter how minor he seems to think it is, it's such a petty example of it that I'd be pretty happy calling it trolling too, and coming down on it.

[FatAndFaithless]

Ah. Incorrect my friend. He went back a year and two weeks to find an instance where he admitted he was wrong.

Oh hell, I thought it was this March. Geez, that's hilariousy bad.

[Huggy Bear]

Hah, and he didn't even include the first sentence of my response in his signature.

But seriously, at what point is this kind of blatant dishonesty against the rules?

Well, I'd suggest that Huggy get acquainted with the rules, wherein quote mining is definitely not okay. No matter how minor he seems to think it is, it's such a petty example of it that I'd be pretty happy calling it trolling too, and coming down on it.

i'm quoting the question and the ANSWER to the question, the statemen of "that's an odd question" is irrelevant"

not to mention the rules clearly state you can quote someone in part, you just can't MODIFY the quote.

Quoting Others Accurately
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but may not change the quoted text in any way.

---

Huggy, it's possible to count to two on one hand, you know.

That was mainly for those who claim I can't admit when in wrong, besides rob can add that example to his count and maybe we can get to two hands.

[robvalue]

I would think missing out sections to change the meaning is not accurate. It's really sad that you want to sneak your quote mining around the rules.

[Esquilax]

i'm quoting the question and the ANSWER to the question, the statemen of "that's an odd question" is irrelevant"

not to mention the rules clearly state you can quote someone in part, you just can't MODIFY the quote.

Taking out the first part of the sentence is modifying the quote, Huggy. If we interpreted the "quoting in part" rule to mean that fragments of a sentence can be deleted, we'd be leaving the door open for the sentence "I am not a child molester" to be, perfectly legally, quoted as "I am a child molester."

And I also don't care that you find the first part of the sentence irrelevant: you are not the one who gets to decide whether you broke the rules or not. Given that you're just using the quote to troll, you don't exactly have a leg to stand on either way.

[Huggy Bear]

It wasn't the first part of the sentence, it was a completely different sentence altogether.

What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

It changes nothing.

[SteelCurtain]

Ah. Incorrect my friend. He went back a year and two weeks to find an instance where he admitted he was wrong.

Oh hell, I thought it was this March. Geez, that's hilariousy bad.

What's really funny is that this instance obviously stuck out in his head because he found it nearly instantly. From over a year ago in a thread that only had like 30 posts. Saying he's wrong is so painful he has PTSD about it and can recall each instance with perfect clarity.

[Esquilax]

Ii wasn't the first part of the sentence, it was a completely different sentence altogether.

What did I just say, about you not getting to decide whether you broke the rules or not?

Also, you seem to have this habit of just ignoring segments of posts that are inconvenient to you. Like what you did in your sig- both times- or every time I picked you up on your inaccurate understanding of evolution... or like right now, when you just ignored the very valid accusation of trolling to focus on minutia.

Oh, and see that, just there? When I used ellipses to indicate a pause, without necessarily disconnecting the thread of the discourse from the rest of the sentence? That's a thing. You're talking to someone who writes professionally here; this is my job, I've done that in published works before. My view of this is entirely valid, Mr. Quibbles.

[SteelCurtain]

It wasn't the first part of the sentence, it was a completely different sentence altogether.

What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

It changes nothing.

And as we've established, periods are like international lines of demarcation for Huggy. If you use a period, he has license to take that sentence as comepletely unrelated to any sentences you have ever or will ever construct.

---

It changes everything. It surely establishes that he is unsure about your meaning in asking the question in the first place.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I would think missing out sections to change the meaning is not accurate. It's really sad that you want to sneak your quote mining around the rules.

Purposefully quoting out of context so as to take the aforementioned quote out of the context it was originally intended is also against the rules as implied.