LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Esquilax]

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?

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.

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:

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?

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?

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.