LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Esquilax]

The rule are posted for a reason aren't they? what's the point in posting rules if they really don't mean what they say they mean? The rules clearly state that you may quote a person in whole or in part you just cannot edit their quote.

The rules also clearly state that the staff reserve the right to treat each case individually, and that we will fall on the side of protecting the author's original words rather than your... creative misuse of them. In addition, as I believe I've pointed out to you before, your sig fell afoul of our trolling and flaming rules as well. Even if you were somehow able to argue that you know more about the rules than the people that wrote them, that still leaves you clearly in violation of those other rules. Just quit while you're ahead.

FaF WAS NOT MISQUOTED nor was his quote edited in any way.

Leaving out pertinent parts of the exchange to make it seem like the person's position is something other than what it actually is is misquoting, Huggy. I don't care if you feel like you should be allowed to get away with it because the rules can be creatively interpreted in such a way as to preclude what you did, because you don't get to enforce the rules or decide the manner in which they were meant. We do, and we did. FaF admitted to his misunderstanding shortly after it was pointed out to him: you posted his original gaffe as though he had not, in order to make him seem stupid. This is a misrepresentation of the event in question, hence it is a quote mine, and only exists to taunt him, meaning it's also flaming.

I am literally looking at the report and the exchange that sparked it in the thread, in a pair of other windows. You fully acknowledge, in that thread, that FaF backtracked when found to be mistaken, and yet you still represented it as though he hadn't. If you quote someone fully in the knowledge of what they mean, for the purposes of making it seem like they meant something else, that is an inaccurate quote.

Dude, just admit your bias....

Yep, that's it. It's all a conspiracy to get you. I just hate you and what you stand for. No quorum composed of six individuals agreed upon in a report I didn't make based on rules we either helped write or were voted in by staff who felt we could properly enforce them. It's just me, out to get you, for no reason.

You fucking child.

Hey, just a thought: if you were to copy and paste that last paragraph I wrote, but without the one sentence coda beneath it that makes it clear that I'm being sarcastic, and represented it as though I was being completely serious, would you consider that a quote mine?

Because under the definition you're arguing here, it wouldn't be.