Hello Daniel!

26 Oct 07 19:29, you wrote to TIM RICHARDSON:

 >> I typed Ross S.' name *Otto*. You altered it to *Ross S.*.
 >>
 >> If you would alter someone elses post in that way.....why should
 >> anyone think you wouldn't alter direct statements of people in
 >> government or acedemia, to reflect what *you* think they `should'
 >> have said, or make them seem to say something that supports `you'
 >> in a discussion?

 DP> Because if I'm going to directly quote somebody as evidence of
 DP> something, I'll point to the source so you can read it for yourself.

If you quote/reply someones message, you are not to alter the original text
that you bothered to include in that quote/reply.

The whole purpose of quoting to begin with is to remind the person you are
replying to, in addition to everyone else, as to what your point is going
to be. Editting quoted text changes the meaning (or it can), therefore is a
mark of dishonesty on your part, as your reply is now going to be crafted
around the quote you editted.

If you dont agree with what someone said, quote back what was said
uneditted and say why.

or

Dont quote it and ignore it.

Both methods work.

This is not to be confused with curtailing the amount of quoting needed to
do the reminding as you present your point.

 >> Not to mention the fact that altering someone elses words in your
 >> replies was, up till now, considered a lowball thing to do.

 DP> Consider it what you want.  I consider it a lowball thing to do to
 DP> purposefully call somebody by a name they've insisted you not use to
 DP> refer to them.

Which doesnt excuse you from violating messaging etiquette that has been in
existence since before you were born.


--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413