Proposed amendment--- Rules for changing quotes

[logroller]

If I were to reply to... what is clearly the only opinion worth stating ... I'd do it like this:


The chargers are the best ever!


- Fixed that for ya, Jim!!

--fixed that for ya DMP

​

[fj1200]

Second Amendment option:
Do not create one thread containing one post where the one post points to another thread containing one post where both are subsequently closed.

Just a suggestion. :poke:

[darin]

lmao. You guys are hilarious.

:D

<3

:beer:

[logroller]

Second Amendment option:
Do not create one thread containing one post where the one post points to another thread containing one post where both are subsequently closed.

Just a suggestion. :poke:

Strawman says confusedly
The second amendment???,

Uhhh.,
You're a racist homo-phobe liar who hates the poor.

[Psychoblues]

lmao. You guys are hilarious.

:D

<3

:beer:

I agree, dimples!!!!! What a hoot!!!!!!!! On the other hand, as one who has often had his statements substantially changed by DP management I have concerns. But, maybe that's a different subject.

Psychoblues

[darin]

On the other hand, as one who has often had his statements substantially changed by DP management I have concerns. But, maybe that's a different subject.

Psychoblues

That has never happened. PB removed from thread

[jimnyc]

Second Amendment option:
Do not create one thread containing one post where the one post points to another thread containing one post where both are subsequently closed.

Just a suggestion. :poke:

I believe that's probably because he made it a sticky for future "readers" and sometimes it's best left as a clean thread. But feel free to comment in this thread regarding this new rule/change. I don't see it as a big deal myself, it's just a matter of making sure that the person reading the thread KNOWS the quote was altered.

[logroller]

I believe that's probably because he made it a sticky for future "readers" and sometimes it's best left as a clean thread. But feel free to comment in this thread regarding this new rule/change. I don't see it as a big deal myself, it's just a matter of making sure that the person reading the thread KNOWS the quote was altered.

FJ,PB, Jim+ DMP have not made any alteration to OP, adopted as introduced! Chargers are the best!!!!

[jimnyc]

FJ,PB, Jim+ DMP have not made any alteration to OP, adopted as introduced! Chargers are the best!!!!

I felt bad for you as a Charger fan and didn't want to spoil the moment. Btw - Philip Rivers is a flaming homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that! :coffee:

[ConHog]

I ....................is a flaming homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that! :coffee:

So , if I changed your quote to the above, is that considered to be against the rules????




:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Psychoblues and I are secret homosexual lovers!

You can completely alter it as above, I suppose, so long as everyone reading KNOWS I changed your post in my quote. I would say that it should probably be mentioned and not assumed. In other words, imagine "Truthmatters" blindly reading threads. That fucking bookend would believe anything that was in the quotes - as long as it was written by a (D)!

[logroller]

So , if I changed your quote to the above, is that considered to be against the rules????




:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Don't forget the last rule of legal research CH-- UPDATE. As originally introduced, you would be fine. But Jim added "no lies or exaggerations".

You have to delete his name from the modified quote, or add something to denote his quote is pending, something like "is this what you meant to say" or "are you trying to say something"

This whole quote rule is becoming quite the conundrum. Confusion, misrepresentation, lies, accusations, vehement opposition --- just like Congressional policy debates.--DP's all growns up.:happytears:

[darin]

The idea is to keep threads as readable as possible. When we're on page 15000 of a topic - detailing how the Steelers blow goats (except for Troy Palalalalalalalalamololololololu, cuz he went to USC and has impressive hair) - we don't need teh additional corn-fusing mis-quotes and what-not.

:)

[ConHog]

You can completely alter it as above, I suppose, so long as everyone reading KNOWS I changed your post in my quote. I would say that it should probably be mentioned and not assumed. In other words, imagine "Truthmatters" blindly reading threads. That fucking bookend would believe anything that was in the quotes - as long as it was written by a (D)!

That tool posts here? I thought her contract only called for to defend the indefensible at all costs over at USMB.

[logroller]

You can completely alter it as above, I suppose, so long as everyone reading KNOWS I changed your post in my quote. I would say that it should probably be mentioned and not assumed. In other words, imagine "Truthmatters" blindly reading threads. That fucking bookend would believe anything that was in the quotes - as long as it was written by a (D)!

OK. So I'm sorta, partially to blame for this rule change. I changed one of JT's quotes which called me dumbass, to him calling himself a dumbass. But given your statement above, I broke the rules because not everybody knows JT would NOT call himself a dumbass, right?

[logroller]

The idea is to keep threads as readable as possible. When we're on page 15000 of a topic - detailing how the Steelers blow goats (except for Troy Palalalalalalalalamololololololu, cuz he went to USC and has impressive hair) - we don't need teh additional corn-fusing mis-quotes and what-not.

:)

There is no place for such objective reasoning, way too hard to argue against. The hair thing makes perfect sense though.:salute:

[ConHog]

OK. So I'm sorta, partially to blame for this rule change. I changed one of JT's quotes which called me dumbass, to him calling himself a dumbass. But given your statement above, I broke the rules because not everybody knows JT would NOT call himself a dumbass, right?

I'll sorta defend you here. IF JT were not in fact a dumb ass then everyone would have naturally known it was you calling him a dumb ass , and not him calling himself a dumb ass without you having to clarify.

[darin]

OK. So I'm sorta, partially to blame for this rule change. I changed one of JT's quotes which called me dumbass, to him calling himself a dumbass. But given your statement above, I broke the rules because not everybody knows JT would NOT call himself a dumbass, right?

Well, I think it's sorta BEEN the rule for awhile. I think most of us who were around back in the day, for those of us, we sorta knew it - just forgot to bring it up I guess. :)

Steelers fans should avoid any restaurant w/ a drive-through:

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/81834325.jpg

[logroller]

Well, I think it's sorta BEEN the rule for awhile. I think most of us who were around back in the day, for those of us, we sorta knew it - just forgot to bring it up I guess. :)

I'm learning; and appreciate your patience and guidance.


http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/81834325.jpg

What's up with this pose? There's that and the owling-- I just don't get it.


I do have a suggested title though. Planking: That's right, please don't.

[fj1200]

I believe that's probably because he made it a sticky for future "readers" and sometimes it's best left as a clean thread. But feel free to comment in this thread regarding this new rule/change. I don't see it as a big deal myself, it's just a matter of making sure that the person reading the thread KNOWS the quote was altered.

I was just making fun...

I don't think the rule change was really necessary. All "adjustments" seemed to be in line with precedent here and at other forums (do they exist anymore?). LR should have been taken to the woodshed for his crime (guilty, no trial necessary) rather than altering accepted forms of interweb posting.

[darin]

saw this online, changed it just a little...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2477&d=1316705643

2477

[ConHog]

saw this online, changed it just a little...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2477&d=1316705643

2477

Fuck you, I have freedom of speech and the COTUS says you can't violate that.


I LOVE it when iditos make that claim LOL.

[logroller]

LR should have been taken to the woodshed for his crime (made to squeal like pig) and then further altering accepted forms of interweb posting.

FJ's euphemism has been elaborated.

[OCA]

The idea is to keep threads as readable as possible. When we're on page 15000 of a topic - detailing how the Steelers blow goats (except for Troy Palalalalalalalalamololololololu, cuz he went to USC and has impressive hair) - we don't need teh additional corn-fusing mis-quotes and what-not.

:)

Ummmm this year its probably best not to talk football since your team...........the Seachickens are quite possibly the worst team in the NFL!:laugh2:

Consensus is you might not be able to beat even KC and they are freakin horrible!

Maybe you'll get #1 pick and get the kid from Wisconsin but probably you'll screw up and win just enough to not get the #1 pick....................nothing personal but that would be freakin great...............I hate the HAWKS!:dance:

Tarvaris Jackson kicks ass!:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Tarvaris Jackson kicks ass!:laugh2:

Darin deserves him since he posted that behemoth of a "woman" further up this screen to poke at my team. Fat chicks and football just don't go together!

Man, Sir Evil had to deal with Tarvaris while he was in Minnesota. That dude does suck. No offense, dmp, but you guys need to switch to a backup or just run all day. This guy is like when the Steelers had Cliff Stoudt or Mark Malone.

[ConHog]

Darin deserves him since he posted that behemoth of a "woman" further up this screen to poke at my team. Fat chicks and football just don't go together!

Man, Sir Evil had to deal with Tarvaris while he was in Minnesota. That dude does suck. No offense, dmp, but you guys need to switch to a backup or just run all day. This guy is like when the Steelers had Cliff Stoudt or Mark Malone.

Correction sir, fat girls don't go with football unless your the Alabama Crimson Tide. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


Go Hogs!!

[darin]

Darin deserves him since he posted that behemoth of a "woman" further up this screen to poke at my team. Fat chicks and football just don't go together!

Man, Sir Evil had to deal with Tarvaris while he was in Minnesota. That dude does suck. No offense, dmp, but you guys need to switch to a backup or just run all day. This guy is like when the Steelers had Cliff Stoudt or Mark Malone.

I'm not offended. TJack seems unsure what he's supposed to do with the ball once he gets it. :( Seattle is TERRIBLE this year.

[OCA]

Darin deserves him since he posted that behemoth of a "woman" further up this screen to poke at my team. Fat chicks and football just don't go together!

Man, Sir Evil had to deal with Tarvaris while he was in Minnesota. That dude does suck. No offense, dmp, but you guys need to switch to a backup or just run all day. This guy is like when the Steelers had Cliff Stoudt or Mark Malone.

Cannot understand why they don't start Charlie Whitehurst, sure he's a stiff but the season is a wash already, whats to lose?

[OCA]

So anyway as I was saying before Gomer ruined this thread:

Just wanted to say...........

SF 33 Seattle 16

Pit 24 Seattle 0

Does Sidney Rice actually play?

[logroller]

So anyway as I was saying on a thread about about rules changes and ruining a thread:

Just wanted to say...........

SF -3.5 Seattle 16 x 10^6

Pit 1 Seattle 3.14

Does Sidney Rice actually play?

-There we go, that's more like it.

[ConHog]

Well guys, it appears that once again I have went too far. Will I ever learn? I wonder how many times I should email Jim begging him to let me come back over the weekend.


Does Sidney Rice actually play?



The above was edited by ConHog



Just so we're clear, that's how it can be done and keep within the rules, right?

[jimnyc]

C'mon guys, hiding the text is almost as bad as not placing something there to begin with. Let's not have to make the rule any more clear. Closing this thread as I sense a feud...