Making Covenants

[Morley]

Two Point Oh starts a thread and wants to lead a discussion…

canpakes took the time to lead towards discussion rather than going all nit picky in other directions that have very little to do with discussion and/or understanding of covenantal relationships with God.

Her thoughts stimulated my thinking somewhat although it was evident that she was coming at things from an agnostic/atheistic vantage point. But that’s fine. At least she had thoughts rather than no thoughts that were relevant to the topic.

And she recognizes my thumb!

On to more reading of the book. I’ll contribute more later when I think there is something interesting/useful to share or if I see a comment/contribution that has some merit and it’s worth the time responding to.

Regards,
MG

You chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith. This is what Doc, Marcus, and others are complaining about.

[IHAQ]

canpakes took the time to lead towards discussion rather than going all nit picky in other directions that have very little to do with discussion and/or understanding of covenantal relationships with God.

Her thoughts stimulated my thinking somewhat although it was evident that she was coming at things from an agnostic/atheistic vantage point. But that’s fine. At least she had thoughts rather than no thoughts that were relevant to the topic.

And she recognizes my thumb!

On to more reading of the book. I’ll contribute more later when I think there is something interesting/useful to share or if I see a comment/contribution that has some merit and it’s worth the time responding to.

Regards,
MG

You chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith.

He’s been warned about exactly that by moderators very recently. He’s clearly not changed his behaviour on the back of that warning. By rights he should now be given some time away from the board as punishment. I’ve reported MG2.0 to moderators for yet another example of something he’s been specifically told not to do. And he’s talking about honouring covenants… <facepalm>

[Marcus]

[mg] chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith. This is what Doc, Marcus, and others are complaining about.

yes. another example of changing meanings, mg says this about me,

Marcus showed an interest in having me share some of the interesting insights that I come across as I’m reading Muhlesteiin’s book. I’m assuming she is honest at heart and serious in her desire to learn...

and this

As per the wishes of Marcus I will try to add additional commentary on what I’m reading/learning from my reading....

because i said this about his minimal reading;

and who quotes only from the first nine pages. When you get into double digit pages, be sure to share.

He knows he is changing meanings. And he knows he is not acting in good faith.

[canpakes]

Two Point Oh starts a thread and wants to lead a discussion on a tome he hasn't bothered to read. It's a wonderment that he doesn't see how truly bizarre this is.

Two Point Oh starts a thread and wants to lead a discussion…

You chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith. This is what Doc, Marcus, and others are complaining about.

I’ve actually done the same sort of truncation many times. This morning, even, in a post to Lowrance, and intentionally playing my abbreviation against his ‘message’. I don’t generally see this as problematic as long as two conditions are met:

1. No portion of the remaining quoted portion has been changed from the original,
2. An ellipsis must precede/follow (or both) the quoted portion, to indicate to the reader that a portion of the full quote has been removed.

Retaining the original link (the arrow symbol) within the quote is also best practice.

This is a slightly different sort of ‘edit’ than changing words or a misattribution, which was recently addressed elsewhere. Even quoting a single complete paragraph from a post with multiple paragraphs can result in the quoted portion delivering a different message than the whole post. But - now that this has been mentioned - I’m all for getting Shades’s input and will follow his recommendation, given that I’m guilty of the same.

[Morley]

[mg] chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith. This is what Doc, Marcus, and others are complaining about.

yes. another example of changing meanings, mg says this about me,

Marcus showed an interest in having me share some of the interesting insights that I come across as I’m reading Muhlesteiin’s book. I’m assuming she is honest at heart and serious in her desire to learn...

and this

As per the wishes of Marcus I will try to add additional commentary on what I’m reading/learning from my reading....

because i said this about his minimal reading;

and who quotes only from the first nine pages. When you get into double digit pages, be sure to share.

He knows he is changing meanings. And he knows he is not acting in good faith.

To be fair, it's not just quotations from other posters that MG does this with. Two Point Oh does the same thing with anything he's reading, which is what makes discussion with him impossible. By the time you finally straighten out what was actually said, the earth's inner core has cooled, the seas have dried up, and the sun has morphed into a supernova.

[Morley]

Two Point Oh starts a thread and wants to lead a discussion on a tome he hasn't bothered to read. It's a wonderment that he doesn't see how truly bizarre this is.

You chopped my sentence in half and changed the meaning. That's not acting in good faith. This is what Doc, Marcus, and others are complaining about.

I’ve actually done the same sort of truncation many times. This morning, even, in a post to Lowrance, and intentionally playing my abbreviation against his ‘message’. I don’t generally see this as problematic as long as two conditions are met:

1. No portion of the remaining quoted portion has been changed from the original,
2. An ellipsis must precede/follow (or both) the quoted portion, to indicate to the reader that a portion of the full quote has been removed.

Retaining the original link (the arrow symbol) within the quote is also best practice.

This is a slightly different sort of ‘edit’ than changing words or a misattribution, which was recently addressed elsewhere. Even quoting a single complete paragraph from a post with multiple paragraphs can result in the quoted portion delivering a different message than the whole post. But - now that this has been mentioned - I’m all for getting Shades’s input and will follow his recommendation, given that I’m guilty of the same.

Thanks, canpakes. I recognize that it can indeed be a humorous form of trolling.

As I see it, the problem with this approach is that not everyone has the interest in following up on footnotes or (in this case) chasing down the original quote to see if that's what was really intended. To intentionally misrepresent someone seems a little disingenuous and can both deceive others following the thread, and serve as a form of Gish galloping.

[Marcus]

I’ve actually done the same sort of truncation many times. This morning, even, in a post to Lowrance, and intentionally playing my abbreviation against his ‘message’. I don’t generally see this as problematic as long as two conditions are met:

1. No portion of the remaining quoted portion has been changed from the original,
2. An ellipsis must precede/follow (or both) the quoted portion, to indicate to the reader that a portion of the full quote has been removed.

Retaining the original link (the arrow symbol) within the quote is also best practice.

This is a slightly different sort of ‘edit’ than changing words or a misattribution, which was recently addressed elsewhere. Even quoting a single complete paragraph from a post with multiple paragraphs can result in the quoted portion delivering a different message than the whole post. But - now that this has been mentioned - I’m all for getting Shades’s input and will follow his recommendation, given that I’m guilty of the same.

Thanks, canpakes. I recognize that it can indeed be a humorous form of trolling.

As I see it, the problem with this approach is that not everyone has the interest in following up on footnotes or (in this case) chasing down the original quote to see if that's what was really intended. To intentionally misrepresent someone seems a little disingenuous and can both deceive others following the thread, and serve as a form of Gish galloping.

Your last sentence captures perfectly the technique under discussion. Properly (or even improperly) truncating a quote to focus on a specific element is a far cry from intentionally misrepresenting someone repeatedly. Mg's completely untruthful misuse of my comment in several recent posts (as I detailed above) is also another very specific example of this, on top of his misrepresentation of you. It's a disingenuous technique.

[IHAQ]

Your last sentence captures perfectly the technique under discussion. Properly (or even improperly) truncating a quote to focus on a specific element is a far cry from intentionally misrepresenting someone repeatedly. Mg's completely untruthful misuse of my comment in several recent posts (as I detailed above) is also another very specific example of this, on top of his misrepresentation of you. It's a disingenuous technique.

A moderator pulled him about this very thing very recently. The moderator removed the altered and truncated “quote” and told MG2.0 to stop doing that. I think MG’s response was “My Bad”. Clearly that warning wasn’t sufficient to amend his behaviour. I’ll be very discouraged if he isn’t banned for a period over this repeated bad behaviour.

[huckelberry]

MG, why would a person not think their role in covenant making was complete when partaking the sacrament?

[IHAQ]

[inaccurate paraphrase deleted - please do not include anything within a quote that doesn’t accurately represent the quoted person’s words. RI]

Message received.

Thanks,
MG

This was yesterday on this very thread. “Message Received” clearly has a different meaning for MG 2.0 than the traditional way it’s usually meant…