Quote editing and baiting?

[Gravlen]

This seems to me to be a case of quote editing with the intent to flamebait:

I quote out of context when it suits my needs, and/or change people's quotes

Yes Gravlen, we can both do that. So can five year olds

What I actually said:

and here's why I think Russia sucks".

While you're right that Russia does suck for their illegal invation in contravention of international law, that's not the point. My statement about how there were no justifications for Russia's actions was germane to my point about why it was unlikely that we'd see a UN investigation.

If you look back, you'll see I haven't changed his quotes, and reading my post it should be clear that the bit about "why I think Russia sucks" is the position he ascribes to me.

[Gravlen]

Come to think about it, I'd like to mention this old report in connection with this new one, both because it may be indicative of a pattern, and because I never got a response to my request for a second opinion.

[The Archregimancy]

Shofercia is clearly guilty of quote editing.

But you clearly selectively quoted his post to ascribe to him a position he didn't hold here:

and here's why I think Russia sucks".

While you're right that Russia does suck for their illegal invation in contravention of international law, that's not the point. My statement about how there were no justifications for Russia's actions was germane to my point about why it was unlikely that we'd see a UN investigation.

When you write "reading my post it should be clear that the bit about "why I think Russia sucks" is the position he ascribes to me", that isn't clear at all.

What it looks like is you deliberately and misleadingly quoting from Shofercia to make it look as if Shofercia is saying "here's why I think Russia sucks" because your very next statement is "you're right that Russia does suck".

If I warn him, I warn both of you.

What I actually suggest is that you both take a deep breath and stop baiting each other - which is what I'm going to write in the actual thread.

[Gravlen]

Shofercia is clearly guilty of quote editing.

But you clearly selectively quoted his post to ascribe to him a position he didn't hold here:

While you're right that Russia does suck for their illegal invation in contravention of international law, that's not the point. My statement about how there were no justifications for Russia's actions was germane to my point about why it was unlikely that we'd see a UN investigation.

When you write "reading my post it should be clear that the bit about "why I think Russia sucks" is the position he ascribes to me", that isn't clear at all.

What it looks like is you deliberately and misleadingly quoting from Shofercia to make it look as if Shofercia is saying "here's why I think Russia sucks" because your very next statement is "you're right that Russia does suck".

If I warn him, I warn both of you.

What I actually suggest is that you both take a deep breath and stop baiting each other - which is what I'm going to write in the actual thread.

*Sigh* Thank you, I see that you're right, and that I in retrospect wasn't as clear as I originally thought I was. I do disagree that the transgressions are equal in severity, but I respect your ruling and offer my apologies to the people involved.