Reply to Mmbossman's second deleted post:
Mirroring someone's post and turning it back on them is a common argumentative strategy. Unfortunately in your case you quoted me and changed my post beyond all recognition. Giving someone else zero chance of guessing what it originally was. It wouldn't have been a problem had you done it without using the quoting function, and lastly a user would never greet themselves.
[EDIT by Bisqwit: "Fixing" quotes of others by changing the quoted content is not allowed on this board's rules. Deleting post content.]
I'm sorry, but: what?
So magically turning something into an image avoids all the rules? Or is this just another Bisqwitism?
It seems remarkably unintelligent to quote (which that is) something, edit it, post it, and then delete another post for doing exactly that.
Unless you're going to somehow argue that using an image magically makes everything okay.
Joined: 12/27/2006
Posts: 532
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Xkeeper wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
AKA wrote:
Hope this helps.
Sorry, had to.
mmbossman wrote:
[EDIT by Bisqwit: "Fixing" quotes of others by changing the quoted content is not allowed on this board's rules. Deleting post content.]
I'm sorry, but: what?
So magically turning something into an image avoids all the rules? Or is this just another Bisqwitism?
It seems remarkably unintelligent to quote (which that is) something, edit it, post it, and then delete another post for doing exactly that.
Unless you're going to somehow argue that using an image magically makes everything okay.
I'm going to guess Bisqwit actually kept the original content while mmbossman changed the post alltogether.
My published movies
[03:45:05] <Naohiro19> Soulrivers: ...
[03:45:19] <Soulrivers> ?
[03:46:35] <Naohiro19> <Soulrivers> No! <Naohiro19> So? <Soulrivers> Yes!
[03:46:48] <Naohiro19> joke
Joined: 12/27/2006
Posts: 532
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Xkeeper wrote:
Booda wrote:
Soulrivers wrote:
I'm going to guess Bisqwit actually kept the original content while mmbossman changed the post alltogether.
In the other case, the forum keeps the original content. It's not like he went back and edited the real post.
People who just entered the thread will assume AKA said something that he actually didn't, which is not something we want. Had they just exited the thread without looking through it fully, they will think AKA actually said what was in the quote. I didn't see mmbossman's actual post though.
My published movies
[03:45:05] <Naohiro19> Soulrivers: ...
[03:45:19] <Soulrivers> ?
[03:46:35] <Naohiro19> <Soulrivers> No! <Naohiro19> So? <Soulrivers> Yes!
[03:46:48] <Naohiro19> joke
If you look carefully you'll find it ;-)
Xkeeper wrote:
Rant
I'm not gonna try talk sense into you because you're resilient to any reasoning one might try and give you, but lets just say you don't have a wider perspective of the situation. Long story short, I criticised Bisqwit on IRC for being trigger happy in terms of publishing the recent SMW run, and for allowing no room for discussion about the additional feature he included in the AVI. Consequently Bisqwit starts looking for any excuse to get back at me however childish and pointless it may be. He may not have the gift of foresight, but he must of somehow predicted that cowardly anti AKA people would start using it as an excuse for bashing. Making a situation that could easilly be swept under the carpet far worse.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
AKA wrote:
he must of somehow predicted that cowardly anti AKA people would start using it as an excuse for bashing.
Assuming you are referring to me with the "cowardly anti AKA people" remark, I will only respond by saying: I'm not anti-AKA. I'm anti- "retarded people who don't have any common sense or logical thought processes". You just happen to be included in that group.
Long story short, I criticised Bisqwit on IRC for being trigger happy in terms of publishing the recent SMW run, and for allowing no room for discussion about the additional feature he included in the AVI. Consequently Bisqwit starts looking for any excuse to get back at me however childish and pointless it may be.
I have underlined the word in your post that is merely an assumption, and in this case, entirely false.
Any perceived relationship between those incidents was completely coincidental. As anyone can tell, I tend to quickly forget the "who" even if I remember the "what", regarding IRC discussions: In fact, I had completely forgot that you (in particular) criticized the publication until your post (quoted above) explicitly reminded about it.
In other words. Please don't think it as a revenge. It was a completely isolated incident. I apologize for any inconvenience it has caused to you, but really, I only did it on moment's inspiration. It could have been anyone's post, had it contained an equal level of grammar mistakes. My (tongue-in-cheek) purpose was to make the post's content better understandable for readers, because bad grammar and rife spelling errors do make text hard to read.
Xkeeper wrote:
[…]
My quote did not imply that AKA had posted anything other than what he did post. I only added (clearly marked) spelling corrections (and in doing so, I did not change AKA's intended meaning; I only suggested a corrected grammar and wording).
Contrary to someone's first "quote" that pretended that someone said something other than what he really did, and the second "quote" that mocked both my edit and the forum rules by changing someone's post's intended meaning but marking them as "corrections".
However, I get the feeling that you weren't really interested in hearing my reasoning, but just wanted to demur for the sake of demurring.
So magically turning something into an image avoids all the rules? Or is this just another Bisqwitism?
You are being ridiculous. That's as silly as complaining if someone quoted someone else and then added corrections after the quote: You can see the original quote *and* the corrections at the same time. In this case they are simply in the same image: You still can see the original and the corrections. Just because the corrections are between the original lines doesn't make it too much different.
You are comparing it to a case where someone quotes someone else, and *removes* parts of that quote and *replaces* those parts with something different, with absolutely no indication that something was changed. Someone seeing that edited quote has absolutely no means of knowing that it's not original or what the original said (without searching for the quoted post and making a complicated comparison between posts which may be far apart from each other).
Assuming you are referring to me with the "cowardly anti AKA people" remark, I will only respond by saying: I'm not anti-AKA. I'm anti- "retarded people who don't have any common sense or logical thought processes". You just happen to be included in that group.
Talk about a redundant post, I'm afraid that's nothing more than trolling. Your boat has capsized on the issue so you better swim for land and get professional help as you grow more insane by the day.
To Bisqwit: You know this falls into JXQ style territory and the immature reaction that will follow it. If it meant so much you could have edited my post and inserted *fixed post* at the bottom, but as I pointed out later Mmbossman's post contained as many errors as you tried to make out in mine.
