Editing other people's comments in your response.

What's the purpose? This is a digital forum. There is no space to be saved. When you hit reply, it places the full quote of someone's post. You have to take extra time and effort to shorten it. Its actually easier to just highlight the part you're referring to and underline or embolden or italicize or even all three if you like, the part that would like to discuss if not the quote as a whole. Its way harder to delete the parts you are not interested in discussing, which makes me think, at least most of the time, you want the part you ARE discussing to be out of context to make your own argument easier.

That's incredibly disingenuous, and probably outright dishonest.

...but what other purpose could be served by doing this?

Im not proposing any rules change or anything. I just want to know if I'm missing something, and to let you all know that this is what it seems like you're doing.

 

I do it to make clear the response. I never delete something to change the context. But I'm sure plenty of people do. In that case it isn't probably dishonest. It IS dishonest.

Sometimes I just highlight things if there would be too much to delete. I just like to remove the clutter to get to the point. A half page quote with one sentence highlighted is still a lot of clutter.

 

How could deleting anything not change the context?

 

Roses are red
Violets are blue

If I want to talk about the roses, the violets don't matter.

 

Not all roses are red.

That isn't too complicated, is it.

 

But you have changed the context from an obvious quotation of necessarily imprecise poetry to an apparent fallacious/ignorant statement.

 

Roses are red: It is a statement of fact. The context doesn't matter. Not all roses are red. That is a fact. No other context is necessary.

 

Of course the context matters. Statements of fact are not the only tools commonly used to communicate.

 

You remind me of the politician who was telling another politician a real whopper.

That's a lie!!! Objected the second politician.

Yes it is! replied the first, but hear me out.

 

There are plenty of methods of communication aside from statements of fact that are commonly used to make a point/counterpoint that don't constitute lies- poetry for one, as you already demonstrated, as well as allegory, anecdote, parable, comparison, hypothesis, sarcasm, hyperbole... all which typically require their full context to be understood.

 

While HD space is no concern of mine, page space definitely is; and as far as I'm concerned, it's rude to quote a wall of text only to reply with "Whatever helps you sleep at night" or something equally trenchant - and especially irritating when 3 or 4 nitwits do it on the same damn page.

Dunno how the hell you figure that, don't give a damn either.

Or, to make it plainer for everyone reading by cutting out the extraneous crap.

As for the context issue, for the reasonably inclined that is addressed by including the link back to the post being quoted - which I always do when attributing a quote to another member.

As idiotic as that opinion is, you're certainly entitled to it all the same.

 

I don't see the problem. If I want to get rid of excess space in your posting, how does it hurt? I have done it because it's easier to read than when somebody puts several blank lines in. Less scrolling.

Also, sometimes I just want to discuss a single paragraph. I don't feel it's disingenous at all, especially if a lot of what they are posting is a quote of what others have written, or if they are writing a full manifesto, most of which I am not discussing. It's easier to read an edited quote than a full one. It's also the academic way to do things--only quote what you are arguing about.

 

Ive brought this up before. Lets just say its acceptable unless you do it to people who think its acceptable.

 

Yes, it's a digital forum and, by quoting the person's post, anyone who wanted to read the full post can click on it to read the full post

I shorten posts because many people are people are poor writers and then to blather on rather than stick to a single point. By quoting only to one specific point, responders can maintain a focus.

 

You can get the same result by just emboldening the focus, without creating your own focus from their point.

 

There. Fixed!

...at least for PC users. Sigs don't show up on phone...

 

Disagreed. Why does it bother you so much?

 

Repetitive edits by opponents who prefer to debate me on one out of context half-idea in attempt to discredit me instead of debating my actual point, under the claim 'i was just focussing on the part that was important'.

Or they'll say 'you cant backup that claim' after editing out where I already did.

I also think its kinda rude to just presume that someone else's point can be boiled down to what amounts to a soundbite and still mean what they intended it to mean.

Admittedly, I know most folks that do it do so inadvertantly.... but its still annoying af.

 

Focusing on a single point and quoting out of context are two different things.

 

Not when you mean to do the first but accomplish the second anyway.

Whats so bad about a full quote and just emphasizing what you think is important with font?

 

Are you complaining about someone in particular and this is just a bitch thread or are you speaking generally?

I explained that previously: to focus on a particular point. Some of our posters are very long winded, unfocused and tend to ramble.

 

Not one, several who i believe do it intentionally, and others who for whatever reason just miss the point (probably skimming) and edit out things pertinent to their response they might read if they werent so focussed on one phrase.

Ill rephrase- why doesnt just emboldening or underlining focus on a specific point as well as deleting everything else? Both clarify exactly what you're refering to...

 

While some people are crappy writers, mostly guilty of rambling, some, as you point out, are lousy editors or readers in their response. That said, even if they quoted your post in total, they'd still misread it or focus on the one point they are addressing. This is an example of good writing:

The Raven
BY EDGAR ALLAN POE
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
“’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door—
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—
This it is and nothing more.”

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you”—here I opened wide the door;—
Darkness there and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore?”
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!”—
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
“Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—
’Tis the wind and nothing more!”

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,
Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore—
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door—
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as “Nevermore.”

But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing farther then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—
Till I scarcely more than muttered “Other friends have flown before—
On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said “Nevermore.”

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—
Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore
Of ‘Never—nevermore’.”

But the Raven still beguiling all my fancy into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o’er,
But whose velvet-violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o’er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
“Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee
Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore;
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—
On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us—by that God we both adore—
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting—
“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!​

It could. It depends upon the post. If the post is long, then doesn't it make sense to cut it down for easier readability?

Lastly, it comes down to choice as espoused here:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....

 

This isn't a writing conpetition. Its a logic competition. The 'quality' of the style only matters insofar as conveying ones point to another.

When you cut out part of it, you're effectively saying you can convey someone else's point better than they can (or even worse, you're saying their point is invalid because it wasn't written skillfully enough). While sometimes true... its an offensively elitist presumption to make, and counterproductive to continued, objective communication.

 

Exactly my point. Some people don't have high quality styles. Some, in fact, quote several people all in the same post. Would you want to click on that post and respond to only the sentence directed at you while leaving all the others? Yes you would; you'd just bold the particular sentence. That's a style. My style is to cut out anything non-pertinent and respond only to the sentence directed at me or, as in this case, the main point.