Comment on Feature request #3987 Quote Replies/Text Quoting comments and posts. by gracejoy

Parent Post: Feature request #3987 Quote Replies/Text Quoting comments and posts.

gracejoy · 9/16/2025, 6:52:42 PM · permalink

TY for your attention, logical. I don't know what "rich text editor" is. Or how an "icon" might work. To allow deletion of words is good; but to disallow it being "edited or added to" would be would ultimately make it prohibitively difficult.  
  
The probem was TC not using quotes at all, so there was no distinction between his words &amp; those he quoted. That [he responded so nastily to being asked](https://soj.ooo/p/freethinkers/post/8e1f5cb4b3ff8482172fb37629474358) to use them shouldn't make his approval the deciding vote to strictly control them. Once quotes are used, it's easy to discern their accuracy: The first time he properly quoted me, for ex., I noticed he'd misquoted (though [he rebuked me](https://soj.ooo/p/dailysojshot/post/d6798d630d5b43eb471389071d953ce7/comment/79107) for saying so). Why worry now that someone will misquote, when it was never a problem before? Are poeple here so corrupt that they can't be trusted now? Or are they so stupid that they're incapable of checking for accuracy?  
  
It would go from noone caring, but me &amp; saarnok, to it being prohibitively difficult for me to use them.  For example, I'd no longer be able to replace something like "*Trump, President of the United States of America*" with \[He\], if the subject was made known in a previous sentence. If quotes were only allowed in a separate paragraph, I'd be unable to split what you wrote into three quotes within my first paragraph, above.   
  
Even my last quote, in that paragraph, took extra time to find grammar so it would fit, when I could have simply written that not being allowed to "edited or added to" a quote would make it difficult. IOW, the idea of quotes is to differentiate who is speaking, not to police people so they don't "put words in \[someone's\] mouth."

Simple example, compare the following two sentences, then imagine how many superfluous words might add up:   
  
1\. If I want to take out a section of a quote, I replace it with an ellipsis, "three dots ... used in writing to indicate omitted text, a pause, or an unfinished thought."  
  
2\. If I want to take out a section of a quote, I replace it with an ellipsis. "Three dots are called an ellipsis. They are used in writing to indicate omitted text, a pause, or an unfinished thought."  
\-----------------  
  
I would rather you forget that I said anything than take away my ability to quote freely. It would probably tip the scale to stop me posting here if such a change was made. Of course, I know I'm not well-liked here, so maybe that would inspire you to make the change. Let me know.

14 bumps

logical · 9/16/2025, 8:13:58 PM · permalink

10 bumps

gracejoy · 9/22/2025, 2:24:41 PM · permalink

"*...new features . need to be well thought out &amp; abuse proof. Not just I want to do . so give me . or I'll leave*."  
  
**I didn't ask for** a "*new feature.*" **I asked** for a Rule that people use quotation marks when quoting, b/c TC [abusively refused](https://soj.ooo/p/freethinkers/post/8e1f5cb4b3ff8482172fb37629474358/comment/78456) when @saarnok &amp; I asked, **contradicting soju's present Rules disallowing** "[**abuse &amp; defamation**](https://soj.ooo/p/freethinkers/post/8e1f5cb4b3ff8482172fb37629474358/comment/78456)." **My objecting to** **automating quotes**, to make it prohibitively difficult for me to post, **isn't** "***do it this way ... or I'll leave***."
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/4920/1758551081595-676ac685adede30f.png)
TC's used them since your post, suggesting a Rule would have been sufficient.
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/4920/1758551081648-19abcf94ccd7c4e1.png)
.

"*You could just quote . twice. No need to allow editing. I am fine with \[it\] I was merely pointing out . that it can be abused for nefarious reasons. ...the goal of the site is . abuse proof. ...abuse . is the nature of humanity*."  
  
**Not allowing editing quotes**, as per grammatical rules, b/c one person refused to use them, **seems counter-intuitive**. It also seems **more in line w/censorship** than w/free speech.

Still, since **you &amp; TC agreed**, nearby, it's "*a good idea*" to make a "*feature request*" **to limit formatting,** **the REVERSE of my** "**idea**," **would you %%give an example%%** **%%how%%** "*quote the person twice*" looks, irl? **%%You could rewrite this comment%%** of mine, relatively simple for me, %%so I might understand%%. Don't forget to **%%include the partial quotes%%** within paragraphs.  
  
Also, **please address**, from my first comment: "***W******hy worry now** that someone will misquote, **when it was never a problem** before? **Are poeple here so corrupt** that they can't be trusted now? **Or are they so stupid** that they're incapable of checking for accuracy?*"

9 bumps

saarnok · 9/22/2025, 5:04:17 PM · permalink

7 bumps

gracejoy · 9/24/2025, 1:21:02 PM · permalink

5 bumps

gracejoy · 9/24/2025, 1:36:47 PM · permalink

3 bumps

saarnok · 9/24/2025, 7:00:16 PM · permalink

I'm good with people "trashing" Christianity if they can do so in a standup match, not by slinging countless videos of other people doing so. As possibly the ONE who broke Christian evangelicals on YouTube ten years ago, I'm resolved (pretty soft resolution) to not doing the same again, anywhere. I have all the silver bullets, all of the stakes, all of the hammers... and they're locked away where posers like TC will never find them... which means not in an hour long video on YouTube that even he'll never listen to.  
  
You've got your religion. Awesome. Until you make it my problem... its not a problem. TC doesn't make arguments and doesn't even seem to have any real understanding of other people's arguments.  
  
I can argue Christianity with you, because I know Christianity inside out. I consider certain Christian tenets to be mental toxins. That said, our nominally Christian background faith is what essentially underpins what has become Western culture. Christianity as we know it has become sort of our existential background, the stability against which we measure diaphanous concepts of good and evil.  
  
When, not if, Christianity has been replaced as the backdrop of sensibility and morality it MUST be by a philosophy within which Christianity can still exist in some recognizable form. And, who knows, though I can't see it happening, perhaps Judaism and Islam can still exist in some satisfactory sense as well.  
  
All three are absolutist in final tally, but Christianity need not effect global dominion on Earth to keep on waiting for the messiah. The other two do.  
  
The idea there's no 'war' on Christianity is utterly ludicrous. There absolutely IS, and for the most part it's not grounded in any "good faith" attempt to achieve something better.  
  
Some of us, not all that many I must admit, simply want the truth to be known to everyone who wants to know it.  
  
Very, very few people grew up in a religious sect so "Christian" you wouldn't even be able to emulate it. I could walk into your church and be accepted instantly as one of you. You couldn't walk into "my church" that I grew up in and pass. You'd be picked out as "other" the moment you pulled off the street into the parking lot. Literally everything about you, down to the way you left the street would mark you. Then, the way you parked. The way you exited your car. The way you stand, the way you walk, the way you speak, the way you greet others. All of it would be the equivalent of a huge neon sign declaring yourself not one of "us".  
  
I've not been part of that for... close to 50 years. Half a century apart. 30 years or so as essentially an atheist from your consideration. Still, I'm closer to being one of them than you are.  
  
And it's left me with the ability to see through the pose when someone like TC shows up. It's also left me with the ability to see the underlying rules they dare not challenge. TC doesn't care, rather the inverse, if you or I challenge him. It's merely an opportunity to beat his chest and denigrate for his own aggrandizement. But, he can't escape the fact that people running a pocha can simplify their lives by just banning him.  
  
I wouldn't waste a single second of my time trying to directly influence the rules and features of soj.ooo for my benefit. It denigrates you far more than the subject of your ire, and frankly, seems somewhat contrary to your Christian ideals, at least to those looking on from outside.  
  
Responding directly to TC, leaving comments under his posts, arguing with "him" is quite simply wasted time and energy which seems transparently to be what he wants.  
  
"Jesus was Gnostic!" Huh. Maybe. Why is that something you should respond to? I ignore it as the tripe it is. Granted, partly because I don't imagine "Jesus" existed at all in the same way I don't imagine "Mohamed" existed at all. But, here's the real problem: You've allowed yourself to suppose you're the representative of your faith in this forum. I know it sucks to think you're not, but take it from an intensely self aware narcissist, that's what you're doing.  
  
Whenever anyone's posting of whatever, anywhere feels like an attack you feel the need to respond to.... just step back a few paces and think about it. He has no grounding in what he's "saying". He quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about. He depends, entirely on your reaction to give weight to his claims.  
  
He's shifted focus several times recently. Probably because I made it obvious he's utterly clueless of the topics he's bringing up.  
  
If you want to effectively combat him, you need to do so from the same sort of attack vector. Just simply present an alternative. A "Gish Gallop" for your side, but unironically acknowledging it as one while demonstrating that you've considered the subject and are willing to debate it in depth.  
  
I don't enjoy mentioning that you're probably ill equipped to do so. Most Christians 99+% have no idea what their opponents actually think. But, that's what you have to do.  
  
Part of your weakness in this fight is your honesty. I desperately implore you to hang onto that honesty while recognizing that while the fire you fight with has a different fuel, you still need to fight fire with fire.  
  
TC is intensely ignorant. It's an existential threat to your personal identity to not be... but that's exactly what's called for here.

1 bump

gracejoy · 9/16/2025, 7:02:00 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature