Quote mechanism

[bilbous]

I can say what I want about Sting as long as I don't badmouth Gordon Sumner is that what you mean? If you put my nickname in the "Author=" field you are attributing the quote to me. It does not matter that it is my penname or pseudonym if that is what you mean. I can correct anything I post if it is erroneous I cannot edit anything you post without a moderators assistance or your cooperation.

If you don't own a computer the RIAA can't sue you for downloading but it has happened. It America litigation is not about what is legal and what is not, it is about crippling financial punishment.

I think if you ask the real reason it is against forum policy is that while the forum may not be responsible for third party posts the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits is prohibitive. If I were to sue you (hypothetically of course), I could just as easily name them in the suit as well on the principle the when suing you name everyone who could possibly be held culpable.

[emeraldfool]

If you tried that in an Irish court, the judge would burst out laughing.

"Wai', wha's dis? Aww, da yankee's all in bad humour 'cause some gob's misquoted 'im on tha... 'Planeshift'... interne' forums, izee? Suing dem fer... libel, izee? Great craic, great craic, ye had me goin' there lad. Now get tha feck outta me court, we've got some terrorists who blew up a school bus comin' in at 9 o'."

[ramlambmoo]

I can say what I want about Sting as long as I don't badmouth Gordon Sumner is that what you mean? If you put my nickname in the "Author=" field you are attributing the quote to me. It does not matter that it is my penname or pseudonym if that is what you mean. I can correct anything I post if it is erroneous I cannot edit anything you post without a moderators assistance or your cooperation.

If you don't own a computer the RIAA can't sue you for downloading but it has happened. It America litigation is not about what is legal and what is not, it is about crippling financial punishment.

I think if you ask the real reason it is against forum policy is that while the forum may not be responsible for third party posts the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits is prohibitive. If I were to sue you (hypothetically of course), I could just as easily name them in the suit as well on the principle the when suing you name everyone who could possibly be held culpable.

If your argument has come down to "It's not against the law but I could bring a lawsuit against you for doing it anyway", I think you're losing a bit of credibility.  In my opinion you would have a very hard time getting a successful libel suit out of someone quoting something that you are then supposed to have said without mentioning even your internet pseudonym.

I think it's pretty clear ethically that "Changing what someone said and then responding to that" is NOT acceptable, as seytra has fleshed out.

[bilbous]

Here is his example:

Here's an example.

Bilbous never actually said this.  This was typed in by Zanzibar to demonstrate a point.

It certainly appears to me he has mentioned my nick. He has in fact attributed to me things I never said. Never mind what he has attributed to me in this case as the comment is not typical of how this technique is used.

I never said it was not against the law I said it did not matter if it was not against the law, the cost of defending yourself is prohibitive. I am not a lawyer and can not give a legal opinion about it especially as laws change with the jurisdiction.

On-line gambling is not against the law in England but that did not stop the US from arresting the CEO(?) of a British Gambling site based in Bermuda(?) when he set foot on American soil. I could look up these stories to provide citation but I don't think it would be too hard for someone else to find them if they do not believe me.


Belatedly addressing Seytra
As far as avoiding being associated with your on-line persona goes, I don't know about you but I had to submit a valid email address to make an account so theoretically it can be traced back to me.

Hmm was it Walmart that sacked a bunch of people for slagging the company on a website? Didn't the CEO of HP employ illegal tactics against her own board members to identify a leak?

Lets see now, IPs are logged for posts on this board so they can be supoenaed. There is little to no privacy on the internet, personally I have a static IP so it is pretty easy to identify me, but even dynamic IPs can be identified from the ISPs server logs.

Anyways this bit about litigation and whatnot was merely additional grapeshot for the cannon because Zanzibar was still exclaiming ... I'm not dead yet ... like some Pythonesque plague victim on the corpse cart. Getting bogged down in it is kind of pointless.

[lordraleigh]

If you tried that in an Irish court, the judge would burst out laughing.

"Wai', wha's dis? Aww, da yankee's all in bad humour 'cause some gob's misquoted 'im on tha... 'Planeshift'... interne' forums, izee? Suing dem fer... libel, izee? Great craic, great craic, ye had me goin' there lad. Now get tha feck outta me court, we've got some terrorists who blew up a school bus comin' in at 9 o'."

Hey! The Brazilian court is even better !

"Your prosecution is on the line, please come back after 15 years to have the veredict"

15 years later

"This is unsuficient evidence for the accusation, therefore *name* is innocent, and you disrupted the more important things that should be judged"

The accused brings a lawsuit against the one that sent a prosecution against him(the accused was a worker that was fired out), claiming he was supporting organized crime and increasing even more the bureaucracy of the (in)justice system with this stupid prosecution. Also he launches a prosecution for violating his rights as a worker, as the one who tried to convict him was his previous employer that dismissed him "unjustly".

More 15 years later

After all the bureaucracy the guy who started the thing is forced to pay an Indemnity of $600,000 to his former employee, and the lawyer that moved the prosecution is happy as he got 10% from it: $60,000

[zanzibar]

I can say what I want about Sting as long as I don't badmouth Gordon Sumner is that what you mean?

No, that's not what I mean.  If you choose to ignore the content of my posts then we have nothing more to discuss.

[bilbous]

Well then I do not see how you are not attributing the quotes to me in your old format, if you are talking about your current format then we are not talking about the same thing. With your current format I think the quotes are out of place but it isn't too big a deal. I still think it is inappropriate, but not enough to officially complain about.

As far as ignoring the content of your posts this would be a much quieter place if it was possible for me to do so. Perhaps you need to express your thoughts more clearly if they frequently get misunderstood.

I suppose that just about everything constructive about this topic has been said and if there is more  to this conversation that is about other things perhaps we should take it to the Plaza.

[zanzibar]

You're still doing it.



I'll give it another shot.


The next quote you see was never said by bilbous.

Purple monkey dishwasher in a jumpsuit.

Bilbous did not say that.  I typed it in there.  Even though the quote has his name, I am not attributing the quote to him.  Do not think he said it because he did not say it.



Ok, do you see a problem with that?

[bilbous]

Yes. By using the quote mechanism that identifies me as the person quoted you have attributed the text to me. In order to not attribute the text to me you must remove Author="bilbous" from the quote tag. Is that clear?

[zanzibar]

Yes. By using the quote mechanism that identifies me as the person quoted you have attributed the text to me. In order to not attribute the text to me you must remove Author="bilbous" from the quote tag. Is that clear?

What it is is ridiculous.  Of course I'll respect it anyway, but how can you not see the sillyness in this?

[bilbous]

It seems silly to me to think that the attribution field component of the quote tag could somehow be considered as doing anything but saying who said the thing that is being quoted. To turn around and deny the attribution does not work because the quote can be cut an pasted without the disavowal of the attribution. There is a reason for it being set off from the normal text. It is far from perfect as is the software being used. We must try to respect the conventions as best we can.

Some people put great store in their word and for someone to put words in their mouth in however obviously a light hearted way gives great offense. Do not mistake me for one of these people, my words are not always golden but I don't like people putting words in my mouth either.

[zanzibar]

Conventions are social, subjective, audience dependant, and evolving.

In my opinion, it is not putting words in anyone's mouth, and it is not attributing words to people who did not write them.  Do you accept that that is my opinion?  Even if you disagree with it, do you understand what my opinion is?

[bilbous]

Certainly. It defies logic, but so do a lot of other things people believe. What do I know, I believe in grey blobs.......

[zanzibar]

Certainly. It defies logic, but so do a lot of other things people believe. What do I know, I believe in grey blobs.......

Since you understand my position, then you should stop accusing me of purposefully trying to mislead people.  If you do not stop, the you prove yourself to be trolling.

[bilbous]

Whatever you say, Bubby. All I accused you of in this thread was inappropriate attributions which is exactly what the problem has been whether you choose to believe it or not.