🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Patterson <tim@raptor.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:

: But there's a big difference between blanking unneccessary
: profanity whilst still preserving the meaning and content
: of the quote, and posting libellous statements for no reason
: except to be obtuse and argumentative.

The difference is one of magnitude, not motivation.  Perhaps you should
read what Vic wrote again:

Message-ID: <5evab9$keb@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>

Vic Moore <zkc16@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:

:: I have every right in the world. I am free to add words, subtract
:: words, or do anything I feel like doing to any post in any newsgroup
:: when I am replying to it. You may not like it, but the implications
:: that I am violating some sacred rule is ludicrous.

Vic is saying that it's okay to do whatever he wants to quoted text and
still purport it to be an accurate representation of what the original
author wrote.  I really don't see any way such a perverse attitude can be
justified, because he *is* saying he has the right to alter the text in
such a way as to be libelous.

See, at the top of this post is a line reading "Tim Patterson
<tim@raptor.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:"  If I take the stuff that you wrote,
and alter it as opposed to prune it, then it's no longer what you wrote.
So, if I do that, I'm misrepresenting what you wrote.  In other words, I'm
*lying*.

It's a strange moral compass that says it's not okay to use profanity
where the kiddies can see it, but that it is okay to intentionally
misrepresent what others said.  How can anyone honestly think that a
cuss-word is a worse sin than a potentially malicious act of dishonesty?
If Vic really is raising his kids under such a moral structure, he's unfit
to be a parent.

Of course, he could just be a hypocrite, which wouldn't be particularly
surprising.

Brian "Shitpissfuckcuntcockmotherfuckertits" Trosko