A Git’s Thoughts on Quote Modding
 

This prickly subject occasionally rears its ugly, zit infested head, so I thought a bit of digging might be in order.

Although not in Chris’ main Forum Rules - way back in 2006 (even before my time) Tenspace put out a notice stipulating that posts should not be amended, but quoted as written. It would be enlightening if any of you ol’ timers could clarify exactly how this came about, if at all there was an ‘incident’ that prompted it.

I’m as guilty as anybody of altering quotes for comic and abusive effect, usually aimed at passing theist idiots (or Jerry & spamming wankers) and I’d like to think it’s painfully obvious when it’s done. Eg, it’s now glaringly apparent that Pahu is not here to engage, but simply to spam his chum Walt Brown’s bullshit creationist website. We could just ban him, but I reckon taking down his shite and passing on a bit of abuse will induce his self dismissal.

If a quote is amended to try and alter the meaning or intent of a message, I’d judge this to be criminal and deserving of something far more serious than the death penalty or withdrawal of alcohol privileges. However, there are occasions where a quote is altered, but the alterations identified using strikeout or bolding and an accompanying note as to why the change. I have no problem with this.

So, what do you buggers think? Strict adherence? A bit of give & take? Or don’t give a shit? No doubt Eva & Prof will have different opinions and we might have to settle this over loadsa beer & drambuie at some point!

I'm sorry Smelly. I only remember that it was Lily/Chaos related and beyond that I can't remember the circumstances.

Please put me in the "Don't give a shit." pile.

I vote for a bit of give and take.

ubs - WTF are you talking about?

I vote for that too.

I think if the changes are subtle and purposely set to mislead, then it shouldn't be aloud, we should leave the misleading to the theists.

If on the other hand it is a blatantly obvious piss take, then why not, after all, some people are just asking for a bit of creative flair to be added to their posts.

What if we're really, really quiet? :shhh:

I think that you should be able to do as you please Kate, anyone who can prove the existence of the booger fairy is clearly beyond reproach. :thumbsup:

:)

I distinctly remember an incident where Lily the lying Catholic cow made subtle semantic changes to some of the atheist posts she quoted, as a sort of convert strawman. It was just one of the many examples of her dishonesty.

BTW, I also think that Kate should be able to do what she wants - a sort of resident anarchist.

Maybe we should say that atheist posters are allowed and theists aren't. I know it's not fair, but tough shit, when you go to someone's house to speak to them you follow their rules.

I'm all in favour of the flexibility thing, but if anyone ever thinks the movable line has been crossed, I'm sure they'll shout and we can do something to sort it out.

I also agree that Kate can do whatever she wants, providing I'm first - no way do I want to follow Slimer. :o

Yeah, that would probably work well, give people a bit more freedom so that we can fuck things up ourselves. If anyone complains then deal with it as per that situation. :thumbsup:

After all, I'm sure our mods are blessed with enough common sense to make judgement calls as required. :angel:

Um, that's "whatever", not "whomever".

Ahem.

We can all work together as a team - pushing and pulling as one! :D

I gotcher whatever right here, baby. :|

Exactly! Why not be irresponsible assholes and just let the mods sort it all out. That's why they get paid the big bucks.