What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

So section 14 of the rules, about "quoting others accurately," just passed you by, eh?

Did you even read the rules before you decided there was nothing in there that you violated? Or did you just assume no such rule could exist because you can't possibly be wrong?

14. 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. Breaking this rule may   result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned, banned, or have your post edited to indicate the violation and / or amend the misquote. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (i.e. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the additions are yours and not the quoted member's, and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text. Use of textual alteration for the purpose of parody may be allowed, provided it is clear that the changes have been made to the original quote. In the case of ambiguity, staff will err on the side of preserving the author's original words rather than preserving your artistic license. If in doubt, include the phrase "Changes made to original quotation." at the top of your post. Staff reserve the right to consider misquotations on a case-by-case basis, weighing context and additional factors.

The rule states clearly that you may quote a member in whole or IN PART, you just may not CHANGE the quoted text in any way. I Quoted FAF's exact words....
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

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

That is the whole exchange.

Quoting people is not the issue, as you were told then, and were told again now. The issue in the first case is you were using it to taunt another member after you both had been speedbumped, and in the second you misrepresented the content you were quoting; it was a simple mistake that had been retracted cheerfully once that had come to light, and you were representing it without that crucial end portion to make the person you were quoting seem unreasonable. That's both trolling and against our rules on quoting people accurately; how many times do you need to be told the same damn thing before it gets into your head? You were not warned for quoting someone in your sig.

You realize I had rhythm quoted (with permission) in my sig for about seven / eight months? Now all of the sudden I'm supposed to realize the interpretation of the rules have changed and now it's considered "trolling"? Give me a break..
Sounds more like a convenient excuse.

FAF did not retract anything, he offered an EXCUSE

The first step is observation.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

As you can clearly see, FAF makes an excuse as if he didn't understand the question, then insinuates that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method.....STILL WRONG! How would adding that part help him in any way? If you have some other evidence where FAF retracted himself then present it, because this ain't it.

Hey dumbass? As I mentioned earlier, and as you should fucking know since you linked to the goddamn thread where all this went down, you weren't warned for what you did with Rhythm. You were warned for what you did with FaF; two different people, different cases, different context.

Are you seriously just not listening to anything that disagrees with you? Or is your memory so bad when it comes to things that make you look bad, that you'll forget things you yourself quoted earlier today?

Why could I have Rhythm quote in my sig for about seven months and it not be an issue, then all of the sudden it's against the rules?

Because you changed your sig from Rhythm's quote to someone else's, and in that case you were quote mining in order to troll that person?

Maybe the issue isn't that you weren't adequately warned, but that you don't fucking absorb information?

The reason I bring up the situation with Rhythm is because it was EXACTLY THE SAME, he made a false statement, was corrected, then he promptly apologized. I put his statement in my sig and not his retraction....for seven months and that was apparently fine...

You continue to claim I was quote mining after I've shown that the exchange with FAF WAS NOT taken out of context if you have other evidence that he was, then present it, otherwise it just seems that you're all butt-hurt over atheist's being made to look foolish on a regular basis.