McCarron says he has been disrespected; compares himself to Brady

[SteelCityColt]

Maybe previous reply crossed with yours.. maybe not...

 

its also funny that travel agencys feels the need to post a whole article about what not to at soccer matches (the same things i said and my exact reasoning)

 

European soccer venues are built to keep the home fans and visiting fans completely separate at all times.  This is because of a very long-standing history of trouble between fans at games.  Usually, the visiting team is given a section of the stadium behind one of the goals, and this section is normally physically separated from the rest of the venue.  Visiting fans come in buses to a special entrance to keep them from mingling with the home fans.

 

 

 

 Avoiding Trouble

This is the most important part.  Even at seemingly benign venues, the explosive mix of alcohol and football fever can bring some beyond the boiling point.  Staying away from trouble is mostly common sense, but the unfamiliarity with an environment could make one uneasy and fear starting a conflagration accidentally.  Here's some tips, which are similar to those you ought to follow to avoid trouble anywhere you are traveling.

 

Wear neutral clothing or the home team colors.  Don't wear the visiting colors.

Stay as far away from the visiting fans and their part of the stadium.

Stay as far away from the visiting fans and their part of the stadium

Accept the fact that certain European behaviors are OK there, and pay no attention to what some are doing.  For example, public urination is very common in Europe at sporting events.  Ignore it.

 

It's most certainly not true that every stadium has a special entrance for visiting fans and in fact you're encouraged to wear team colours as a visiting fan if you don't wish to get involved in a violent altercation. The majority of violence attached to football is conducted between two sets of "hardcore" fans knows as "firms" or more commonly in on the continent "ultras". They will often prearrange a confrontation which, and this is the key part, takes place nowhere near the actual game itself. There is a rule in the UK among firms that normal fans, i.e. wearing shirts, get left alone. In general most hardcore UK fans wear fashion clothing that changes with time, think Burberry or North Face jackets as an example. 

 

This is not the same throughout Europe, but then we're talking about the UK here? 

 

Getting out of the ins and outs of this for a moment, the point is you presented a statement as if you were in a position of knowledge when that was not the case which is a common theme in your posts. This is what irks me, a man's credibility is sacrosanct IMO.

 

so was that good enough for you, you want a linnk? that way you can find something wrong with my "source"

 

so now you can scrap the whole "im from england i know and you dont" since theres outside neutral validation

 

Yes please for the sources, I should think 25 odd years experience of going should count for something...... and I'd like to see if the people who wrote such things actually have been to a game here or not. 

 

I'll repeat again you seem to misconceive what the issue is and I've made several overtures to calm this down. 

[Naptown Lifer]

Sigh, I take it the bottom part of my reply didn't get taken in the manner I intended. 

 

I'm sorry if you misunderstood that point about sitting with opposing fans, that was more in response to your assertion, despite having no experience of said events that segregation is purely because of violence at football matches. The original point you made as you put yourself:

 

"I thought how disrespectful to go to someone else's house and tell them that their boy, hero, qb, whatever was inferior. I encourage those of you who do that to atten an fa premier soccer league game and do the same thing."

 

I was arguing that this happens on a regular basis in the football league. Seriously you should hear some of the terrace chanting that is aimed at players yet we the local florists aren't doing a roaring trade. As for "if it's common sense", I can't speak for any of those professional organisations but are you trying to tell me there is no fan violence at these events? Very different sporting cultures, like I said the idea of "ends" goes way way back before the era of hooliganism. 

 

So without wishing to put words in your mouth.... so far:

 

• You've posted a quote that a number of people have asked to see the source on, both Colts and Pats fans, yet you can't produce one better than "my journalistic friends told me". You don't seem to understand that what irks people is not so much the content but that it's unethical to post such a statement without substantiating it. Might I add that some of the Pats fans you've criticised for coming to "our house" have been around longer and treated other posters with a deal of respect IMO on the whole.
• You've accused me a number of times of using ad hominems but haven't provided me with any examples as yet.
• You made some pretty damming statements in the J Martin thread, which is your right and opinion entitlement, but again when you're called to substantiate them you become aggressive to the point of personal attack that led to the thread being closed.

Tell me if any of the above bullet points are wrong or incorrect? 

 

Now this thread has been totally derailed and I don't think it would be fair to get another discussion shut because of our little interaction so I suggest we both show a little maturity and move on from this disagreement and let's get back to talking about a mediocre QB prospect

look dude, quit telling me what i am allowed to comment on and say. i dont have to go to england to say what is going on there. youre right just because people are separated at football matches doesnt mean they wont sit where they choose and not encounter violence. but that doesnt mean the potential isnt there and the fans are clearly separated for this reason. so you can keep going around in circles and responding to points that i have not made because you just dont know when to shut up.

 

i stated that it wouldnt be wise to go the matches, sit with opposing fans, and act like a jerk, period. you keep going around in circles stating all these scenarios that dont have to do with my original point. as you said you did it, and didnt act like a jerk so what? what does that have to do with what i said? youre whole you havent gone you have no expierence therefore cant make an assertion is an ad hominem. its saying i dont have the capacity to make an assertion because i havent done it and therefore is aimed at me rather than the original point. same with the richie shot martin on the grassy knowel, has nothing to do with the arguement but is just attacking me and trying to make me look paranoid or foolish. why else would you say that? or saying i have to ask in a manner you can understand did u read it! that implies im not capable of understanding something a certain way and therefore stupid or not as smart as you which again is attacking me not the argument. these are off the top of my head.

 

now for the quote, i feel no need to respond to you where i got it. ive already seen you chase your tail in a circle when it comes to this whole soccer thing where youre arguing stuff i never said. ive also already read someone say "anything a public figure says on tv is on the internet" and "he would never say that because he already said he wouldnt want anyone besides brady" both of these quotes as illogical as they are have been received with support from those of you who keep asking. this goes to show me that if it isnt on the internet you guys have already said you arent going to believe it and im tired of arguing with someone that doesnt even know what theyre arguing about just that they want to keep it going. obviously im not going to to break your guys' belief that "everything is on the internet or its not true" so i have no reason to feel the need to repeat the process with you of showing you my original point and restating my stance half way through an argument because you realize what im saying is true and so you act likee ive been saying something else from the beginning

[Naptown Lifer]

Maybe previous reply crossed with yours.. maybe not...

 

 

It's most certainly not true that every stadium has a special entrance for visiting fans and in fact you're encouraged to wear team colours as a visiting fan if you don't wish to get involved in a violent altercation. The majority of violence attached to football is conducted between two sets of "hardcore" fans knows as "firms" or more commonly in on the continent "ultras". They will often prearrange a confrontation which, and this is the key part, takes place nowhere near the actual game itself. There is a rule in the UK among firms that normal fans, i.e. wearing shirts, get left alone. In general most hardcore UK fans wear fashion clothing that changes with time, think Burberry or North Face jackets as an example. 

 

This is not the same throughout Europe, but then we're talking about the UK here? 

 

Getting out of the ins and outs of this for a moment, the point is you presented a statement as if you were in a position of knowledge when that was not the case which is a common theme in your posts. This is what irks me, a man's credibility is sacrosanct IMO.

 

 

Yes please for the sources, I should think 25 odd years experience of going should count for something...... and I'd like to see if the people who wrote such things actually have been to a game here or not. 

 

I'll repeat again you seem to misconceive what the issue is and I've made several overtures to calm this down. 

youre right man the travel agency, my friends, other people ive talked to are all wrong. soccer fans are segregated for every reason except violence as you said it its common sense

[SteelCityColt]

youre right man the travel agency, my friends, other people ive talked to are all wrong. soccer fans are segregated for every reason except violence as you said it its common sense

 

Now did I ever say it wasn't a reason, nope just not the only one  

 

One travel agency, your friends and "other people" is not exactly the be all and end all now is it, next you'll be quote Bleacher Report! That's a joke by the way at the expense of B/R, not you. 

[SteelCityColt]

look dude, quit telling me what i am allowed to comment on and say. i dont have to go to england to say what is going on there. youre right just because people are separated at football matches doesnt mean they wont sit where they choose and not encounter violence. but that doesnt mean the potential isnt there and the fans are clearly separated for this reason. so you can keep going around in circles and responding to points that i have not made because you just dont know when to shut up.

 

i stated that it wouldnt be wise to go the matches, sit with opposing fans, and act like a jerk, period. you keep going around in circles stating all these scenarios that dont have to do with my original point. as you said you did it, and didnt act like a jerk so what? what does that have to do with what i said? youre whole you havent gone you have no expierence therefore cant make an assertion is an ad hominem. its saying i dont have the capacity to make an assertion because i havent done it and therefore is aimed at me rather than the original point. same with the richie shot martin on the grassy knowel, has nothing to do with the arguement but is just attacking me and trying to make me look paranoid or foolish. why else would you say that? or saying i have to ask in a manner you can understand did u read it! that implies im not capable of understanding something a certain way and therefore stupid or not as smart as you which again is attacking me not the argument. these are off the top of my head.

 

now for the quote, i feel no need to respond to you where i got it. ive already seen you chase your tail in a circle when it comes to this whole soccer thing where youre arguing stuff i never said. ive also already read someone say "anything a public figure says on tv is on the internet" and "he would never say that because he already said he wouldnt want anyone besides brady" both of these quotes as illogical as they are have been received with support from those of you who keep asking. this goes to show me that if it isnt on the internet you guys have already said you arent going to believe it and im tired of arguing with someone that doesnt even know what theyre arguing about just that they want to keep it going. obviously im not going to to break your guys' belief that "everything is on the internet or its not true" so i have no reason to feel the need to repeat the process with you of showing you my original point and restating my stance half way through an argument because you realize what im saying is true and so you act likee ive been saying something else from the beginning

 

I think we've reached finally agreement in that we're going round in circles here, As I said my advice to you is stop taking everything to heart and reacting like it! This is not a dig or otherwise personal attack.

 

The JFK thing was actually a satirical poke at the Warren report if you read it correctly... but as it wasn't explicitly stated (would kinda ruin the satire!) I can see how you can mistake my meaning. So again this was not a NapTown smear job, just a little humour. 

 

As for your last point again I reiterate it's very easy to make a statement, proving it's credibility is another, saying because I say so doesn't count. To attribute the statement to someone else without it being public record is unethical. Please, this is not a dig again, do you understand why I'm saying that last part?

[Naptown Lifer]

Now did I ever say it wasn't a reason, nope just not the only one

 

One travel agency, your friends and "other people" is not exactly the be all and end all now is it, next you'll be quote Bleacher Report! That's a joke by the way at the expense of B/R, not you. 

okay well ill make sure to contact you for my soccer information before i even think about it since hearing first hand accounts from now collegiate/possibly professional soccer players who played since they were 5 and had dozens of trips to europe and played with hundreds of international players isnt reputable enough to repeat their account of a soccer match in europe on an internet forum (that is further corrobaerated by a travel agency). maybe you should write your own mla handbook for sources it could go like this

 

"when talking on the internet never quote what your friend said occured to them in another country even if it is backed by an outside source, another know-it-all native will come along and discredit yoour statement and has automatic override ability to point it out as not true since they live there they will then go about pointing every exception to what youre friend observed and use this to discredit your statement as never having the ability to occur because one time something different happened"

[Naptown Lifer]

I think we've reached finally agreement in that we're going round in circles here, As I said my advice to you is stop taking everything to heart and reacting like it! This is not a dig or otherwise personal attack.

 

The JFK thing was actually a satirical poke at the Warren report if you read it correctly... but as it wasn't explicitly stated (would kinda ruin the satire!) I can see how you can mistake my meaning. So again this was not a NapTown smear job, just a little humour. 

 

As for your last point again I reiterate it's very easy to make a statement, proving it's credibility is another, saying because I say so doesn't count. To attribute the statement to someone else without it being public record is unethical. Please, this is not a dig again, do you understand why I'm saying that last part?

no i dont understand why youre saying the last part because i dont care if a statement was credible or not. If you dont think its believable good for you. Im not out to prove credibility. Im out to prove a point. If you want to discredit it fine, but do so in a logical way other than "its not on the net, its not true." Like you said saying because i say so doesnt count, but seeing as you havent posted anything to prove it couldnt possibly be said all you are doing is being a hypocrite

 

obviously you have a very obscure opinion about whether people are allowed to comment on their observations of the real world, theres waaay too much of this on the internet "i didnt hear/expierence/see it that way so it isnt true"

 

also are we now in agreement on the ad hominems i see you only gave a half hearted defense of one?

[SteelCityColt]

no i dont understand why youre saying the last part because i dont care if a statement was credible or not. If you dont think its believable good for you. Im not out to prove credibility. Im out to prove a point. If you want to discredit it fine, but do so in a logical way other than "its not on the net, its not true." Like you said saying because i say so doesnt count, but seeing as you havent posted anything to prove it couldnt possibly be said all you are doing is being a hypocrite

 

obviously you have a very obscure opinion about whether people are allowed to comment on their observations of the real world, theres waaay too much of this on the internet "i didnt hear/expierence/see it that way so it isnt true"

also are we now in agreement on the ad hominems i see you only gave a half hearted defense of one?

You're missing the point about the ethics completely. I've never said anything along the lines of it's not on the net it's not true so who's putting words in whom's mouth now? You also seem to not understand about proving negatives but hey no.

I never agreed about the ad hominems and in fact clarified that supposed one as a tip towards civility, I don't think you understand completely what one is.

[SteelCityColt]

okay well ill make sure to contact you for my soccer information before i even think about it since hearing first hand accounts from now collegiate/possibly professional soccer players who played since they were 5 and had dozens of trips to europe and played with hundreds of international players isnt reputable enough to repeat their account of a soccer match in europe on an internet forum (that is further corrobaerated by a travel agency). maybe you should write your own mla handbook for sources it could go like this

 

"when talking on the internet never quote what your friend said occured to them in another country even if it is backed by an outside source, another know-it-all native will come along and discredit yoour statement and has automatic override ability to point it out as not true since they live there they will then go about pointing every exception to what youre friend observed and use this to discredit your statement as never having the ability to occur because one time something different happened"

Pfft and I can argue I've attended hundreds if not thousands of matches, was brought up in the culture of this country and played youth academy football. So what?!

You need to re read this all because you seem to misunderstand things quite deliberately!

[Jaric]

So, am I the only one whose eyes glaze over when guys start talking about being "disrespected?"

Sounds like whining to me.

[SteelCityColt]

So, am I the only one whose eyes glaze over when guys start talking about being "disrespected?"

Sounds like whining to me.

I lost the will to live some time ago

[Naptown Lifer]

Pfft and I can argue I've attended hundreds if not thousands of matches, was brought up in the culture of this country and played youth academy football. So what?!

You need to re read this all because you seem to misunderstand things quite deliberately!

so what is you brush aside what they said because its not " a good source" but clearly they had more involvement in the soccer community than you ever did

 

you also didnt even adress the most obivious ad hominems again here shows your lack of reading comp where youre just bashing me and not adressing the martin report at all, and for as much as you like to correct peoples sources you sure never disagreed about the whole "if it aint on the net it aint true" logic seeing as your mr mla evaluate my work cited page for anything i type you shouldve been eager to jump on that, but you were too busy posting crap that had nothing to do with my reasons for not supporting john martin only one person did in fact when do you ever? Just post things like i  know im from there, well where was your source? you cant just say because i said so i thought?

[sweetsurrender]

so what is you brush aside what they said because its not " a good source" but clearly they had more involvement in the soccer community than you ever did

 

you also didnt even adress the most obivious ad hominems again here shows your lack of reading comp where youre just bashing me and not adressing the martin report at all, and for as much as you like to correct peoples sources you sure never disagreed about the whole "if it aint on the net it aint true" logic seeing as your mr mla evaluate my work cited page for anything i type you shouldve been eager to jump on that, but you were too busy posting crap that had nothing to do with my reasons for not supporting john martin only one person did in fact when do you ever? Just post things like i  know im from there, well where was your source? you cant just say because i said so i thought?

FYI - one of the forum rules is:  No “nonsense” posts, this includes rumors.

[SteelCityColt]

so what is you brush aside what they said because its not " a good source" but clearly they had more involvement in the soccer community than you ever did

you also didnt even adress the most obivious ad hominems again here shows your lack of reading comp where youre just bashing me and not adressing the martin report at all, and for as much as you like to correct peoples sources you sure never disagreed about the whole "if it aint on the net it aint true" logic seeing as your mr mla evaluate my work cited page for anything i type you shouldve been eager to jump on that, but you were too busy posting crap that had nothing to do with my reasons for not supporting john martin only one person did in fact when do you ever? Just post things like i know im from there, well where was your source? you cant just say because i said so i thought?

Clearly?! Umm you don't know me or anything about the levels in which I am and have been involved in the game.

There is no point continuing with you, I have tried to meet you half way but you ignore what you don't like to hear. I've tried to engage you civilly but you have to constantly push with aggression and personal attacks.

To make it clear, and please don't dance around this. The main problem is you attribute a quote, that is quite controversial to a public figure that is not public domain. It's unethical and could technically be libellous. Do you get why people are irked by it? I could quote "you" in mg signature saying anything I want. Would you like that? No.

I suggest we leave this at this, please for the good of the forum, let that be something to agree on? Or do you want to keep going and going because there won't be a "winner" and that's the validation you seem to be seeking.

[Naptown Lifer]

FYI - one of the forum rules is:  No “nonsense” posts, this includes rumors.

yeah and its broken every day and is pointless half the threads here are rumors but they are said by the media so that makes it okay?

[Naptown Lifer]

Clearly?! Umm you don't know me or anything about the levels in which I am and have been involved in the game.

There is no point continuing with you, I have tried to meet you half way but you ignore what you don't like to hear. I've tried to engage you civilly but you have to constantly push with aggression and personal attacks.

To make it clear, and please don't dance around this. The main problem is you attribute a quote, that is quite controversial to a public figure that is not public domain. It's unethical and could technically be libellous. Do you get why people are irked by it? I could quote "you" in mg signature saying anything I want. Would you like that? No.

I suggest we leave this at this, please for the good of the forum, let that be something to agree on? Or do you want to keep going and going because there won't be a "winner" and that's the validation you seem to be seeking.

you can keep going back to the quote everytime youre wrong if you like but it doesnt make you right about all the other things youve said and the numerous times youve contradicted yourself and proved my point for me

[SteelCityColt]

you can keep going back to the quote everytime youre wrong if you like but it doesnt make you right about all the other things youve said and the numerous times youve contradicted yourself and proved my point for me

I go back to it because you refuse to answer or acknowledge the point about it being unethical. I guess because you know it's a valid one. This seems to be your modus operandi, ignore and and rant about how everyone else is wrong.

Please educate me as to where I've contradicted myself?

[Jaric]

FYI - one of the forum rules is:  No “nonsense” posts, this includes rumors.

Lol well have to shut the forum down if they start strictly enforcing that rule.

[SteelCityColt]

Lol well have to shut the forum down if they start strictly enforcing that rule.

Very true

[Jaric]

Very true

Sometimes it feels like I've wandered into BizarroWorld.

[Naptown Lifer]

I go back to it because you refuse to answer or acknowledge the point about it being unethical. I guess because you know it's a valid one. This seems to be your modus operandi, ignore and and rant about how everyone else is wrong.

Please educate me as to where I've contradicted

no it is not unethical for me to post a quote that isnt common knowledge and a google click away from verification

 

as for contradicting yourself i already pointed it out re read my posts 

[SteelCityColt]

no it is not unethical for me to post a quote that isnt common knowledge and a google click away from verification

as for contradicting yourself i already pointed it out re read my posts

Please for the less able of us provide the link, my google skills aren't as good as you angry young men.

You fail to answer a direct question once again regards contradicting, man you're hard work, more slippery than a greased up eel

[Naptown Lifer]

Please for the less able of us provide the link, my google skills aren't as good as you angry young men.

You fail to answer a direct question once again regards contradicting, man you're hard work, more slippery than a greased up eel

why would i dig thru all this to try and find it when youre not going to understand it anyways, just like how u read my post and some how came up with "the quote is on google, where is it?". it shows you dont pay attention to what youre reading and talking with someone like that is a waste of time and explains a lot, good bye forever sir

[SteelCityColt]

Why would I dig through all this to try and find it when you're not going to understand it anyway, just like how you read my post and some how came up with "the quote is on Google, where is it?" It shows you don't pay attention to what you're reading and talking with someone like that is a waste of time and explains a lot, good bye forever Sir.

 

So we've gone from "you can't say it's not true because it's not on the internet" to it's "only a Google click away", bit of a change of message there. The reason I asked was somewhat factitious I'll admit as I'd previously Google'd it and guess what... only link found was threads on this here forum so that was a genuine please show me the Google click or again is this something you can't back up and so will get aggressive about it and accuse me of failing to comprehend your point because I've persisted in pinning you down. Either way it looks like you've removed it so progress has been made

 

I think it's a little rude to to say I've not been paying attention, when I've read, answered and responded to everything you've posted with a degree of civility that was not earned. You on the other hand have evaded, dodged and muddied the waters at every turn while slipping in personal attacks on myself and other members.I was being sincere in my advice to you in previous posts, I really do not think you understand how you portray yourself to others in your posts.I have now on 3 separate posts offered to let this lie and move on from something we will never reach an accord on but you had to have the last word and "win". Congratulations Sir on your Pyrrhic victory    

 

Oh as a parting gift, seeing as you're saying goodbye I'll throw in the proof reading of the quoted for free, it's a bit ironic to accuse someone of failing to comprehend text that is in incorrect English. People in stone houses.... should not bait Grammar Nazis

[Naptown Lifer]

So we've gone from "you can't say it's not true because it's not on the internet" to it's "only a Google click away", bit of a change of message there. The reason I asked was somewhat factitious I'll admit as I'd previously Google'd it and guess what... only link found was threads on this here forum so that was a genuine please show me the Google click or again is this something you can't back up and so will get aggressive about it and accuse me of failing to comprehend your point because I've persisted in pinning you down. Either way it looks like you've removed it so progress has been made

 

I think it's a little rude to to say I've not been paying attention, when I've read, answered and responded to everything you've posted with a degree of civility that was not earned. You on the other hand have evaded, dodged and muddied the waters at every turn while slipping in personal attacks on myself and other members.I was being sincere in my advice to you in previous posts, I really do not think you understand how you portray yourself to others in your posts.I have now on 3 separate posts offered to let this lie and move on from something we will never reach an accord on but you had to have the last word and "win". Congratulations Sir on your Pyrrhic victory    

 

Oh as a parting gift, seeing as you're saying goodbye I'll throw in the proof reading of the quoted for free, it's a bit ironic to accuse someone of failing to comprehend text that is in incorrect English. People in stone houses.... should not bait Grammar Nazis

 again here is what i said

 

 

no it is not unethical for me to post a quote that isnt common knowledge and a google click away from verification

 

=

IS NOT is functioning as a linking verb. it is linking common knowledge AND "a google click away from verification " to quote. IS NOT means doesnt equal, isnt similar to, or not resembling.

 

i was stating (again) that the quote wasnt common knowledge AND it isnt a google click away from verification, youre so anxious to spew more nonsense that you dont even pay attention to what is written, prove my points for me, and claim i cant state something my friends, a travel agency, and thousands others have observed because "that source sucks, im here and i know" even though you said "saying because i said so isnt good enough" which is another of your contradictions. try reading next time, you might understand more

[SteelCityColt]

again here is what i said

IS NOT is functioning as a linking verb. it is linking common knowledge AND "a google click away from verification " to quote. IS NOT means doesnt equal, isnt similar to, or not resembling.

i was stating (again) that the quote wasnt common knowledge AND it isnt a google click away from verification, youre so anxious to spew more nonsense that you dont even pay attention to what is written, prove my points for me, and claim i cant state something my friends, a travel agency, and thousands others have observed because "that source sucks, im here and i know" even though you said "saying because i said so isnt good enough" which is another of your contradictions. try reading next time, you might understand more

Replace and with nor and you have the meaning you were aiming for

I objected to your paintbrush job which now you've taken to extremes because you have shown you can't deal with being perceived as wrong in anything...

I can't help your failure to understand the ethics behind quotations and public domain, in fact if you really want to get into it the public domain part gets very technical vis a vis the press but we digress.

Keep it coming ... It's the offseason after all!

[Naptown Lifer]

Replace and with nor and you have the meaning you were aiming for

I objected to your paintbrush job which now you've taken to extremes because you have shown you can't deal with being perceived as wrong in anything...

I can't help your failure to understand the ethics behind quotations and public domain, in fact if you really want to get into it the public domain part gets very technical vis a vis the press but we digress.

Keep it coming ... It's the offseason after all!

no, it had the same meaning to begin with you just didnt understand it, you can keep saying "quoting a public figure where the quote isnt available to me is unethical" is your opinion and an illogical one. i dont choose what to say based on whether you know it already, or will be able to verify it. im not writing a text book 

[SteelCityColt]

no, it had the same meaning to begin with you just didnt understand it, you can keep saying "quoting a public figure where the quote isnt available to me is unethical" is your opinion and an illogical one. i dont choose what to say based on whether you know it already, or will be able to verify it. im not writing a text book

The key misunderstanding here is quoting a public figure when there is no proof, to anyone not just me,said quote was uttered by them is unethical. It's why there is such a thing as "off the record". I mean otherwise we could all just run round making things up as and when we felt like it right. I suppose we could go ask Bill directly

You should choose to say it because you know it's verified. Again take the example someone quotes you falsely how would you like it? Try answering the question this time.

Are you sure you're not writing the follow up to "How to win friends and influence people"?

[Naptown Lifer]

You should choose to say it because you know it's verified.  Try answering the question this time.

 

 

 you can keep saying "quoting a public figure where the quote isnt available is unethical"  it is your opinion and an illogical one. i dont choose what to say based on whether you know it already, or will be able to verify it. im not writing a text book 

do you have a source for it being unethical i gotta ask?

[SteelCityColt]

do you have a source for it being unethical i gotta ask?

But of course it's just a google click away. One discussion here about the ethics of changing a quote you actually have on record let alone one off it.

http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=1340

Or

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/1014/Legal_vs_ethical_smackdown_journalists_find_quote_changing_grossly_unethical_.php

Or

http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/what-are-risks-of-misquoting.html?m=1

So it seems the consensus of the press, you said your friends were in the press right is that misquoting or quoting when off record is unethical.

[Naptown Lifer]

But of course it's just a google click away. One discussion here about the ethics of changing a quote you actually have on record let alone one off it.

http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=1340

Or

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/1014/Legal_vs_ethical_smackdown_journalists_find_quote_changing_grossly_unethical_.php

Or

http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/what-are-risks-of-misquoting.html?m=1

So it seems the consensus of the press, you said your friends were in the press right is that misquoting or quoting when off record is unethical.

these articles have little to nothing to do with presenting quotes that arent verifiable, they are about changing quotes and misquoting neither of which we are talking about, this is what i mean you have problems connecting what is relevant to the conversation or even knowing the topic at hand it seems because those articles have nothing to do with what we were talking about. 

[SteelCityColt]

these articles have little to nothing to do with presenting quotes that arent verifiable, they are about changing quotes and misquoting neither of which we are talking about, this is what i mean you have problems connecting what is relevant to the conversation or even knowing the topic at hand it seems because those articles have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Read the first sentence of my previous reply again... It's a discussion about misrepresenting someone who has been quoted "on the record" and how it is unethical. Now there is no proof this quote was ever said in record so you can laterally extend the ethics to its unethical as you're presenting it as "on record".

[Naptown Lifer]

Read the first sentence of my previous reply again...

One discussion here about the ethics of changing a quote you actually have on record let alone one off it.

 

clear as day , were not talking about  changing quotes when have we ever talked about changing quotes. just because you said "let alone off it" didnt make that irrelevant article some how more relevanrt, sorry

[Shane Bond]

I am convinced Naptown Lifer and SteelCityColt are the ideal candidates for ANY peace talks. 

[SteelCityColt]

I am convinced Naptown Lifer and SteelCityColt are the ideal candidates for ANY peace talks.

Urgh just pass me the big red button