(May 16, 2015 at 8:20 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:(May 15, 2015 at 7:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Are you capable of reading comprehension, or are you deliberately trying to muddy the water? In the context of the exchange, a selected part you chose to quote, the phrase "initial request" refers to chad's "show that a better world is possible without resorting to speculation".
Incidentally, your breach of Rule 14 on my quote, reinstated above, has been reported.
The thing's getting so cluttered with posts quoting other posts that it's hard to follow. That was a real question. The answer's clear at this point.
The context was perfectly clear. Only by cherrypicking could you confuse the issue.
(May 16, 2015 at 8:20 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Although I don't follow the numbered rule list,
Not my problem. Start doing so. Like everyone else does.
(May 16, 2015 at 8:20 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: it is ordinarily permissible to use ellipses .... to indicate that part of a quoted source is left out. There's an arrow button to go back to the source. It looks neater that way. I don't think omitting the words "malformed" and "dishonest" and leaving "set up to fail" materially misrepresents what you said.
Then there should be no reason to omit them. The Rules are explicit. Follow them or find the door. Your choice.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
