The Incomplete Quote is a deliciously useful tactic, especially in large doses. It involves cropping words off the beginning or end of a statement made by your foe (it's cheating if you take words out oft he middle). For example:
It's not like I think homosexuality is gross, I just don't think it's right.
I think homosexuality is gross, I just don't think it's right.
Which gives you the opportunity to call them a close minded nazi. If need be, you can change punctuation, but try to avoid changing words.
In large doses, where say, your opponent makes a large post with many points you can/can not argue. Thus, you quote them, point by point, arguing the ones you can, but oops, carefully omit the ones you can't. Hopefully, it'll slip by them. If not, they'll point it out. Pretend not to see this either.
A useful technique if the purpose is to annoy; it's extremely annoying.
Unfortunately, it leads to "The Complete Quote" response, a barrage of copy-and-paste and page after page of repetitive posts.
(Moderators hate that.)
Then you can add some large text, extra large text, colored text, and lots of smilies. Won't be long before the banning begins. Starting with you, probably.
But it's fun while it lasts, if you have a lot of time on your hands. _________________ what, me worry?
Well that is a possible tactic, but if it's used in a more serious discussion or topic the effects could be abject such as 'don't ever put words in my mouth again, you fucking prick' or whatnot. You can call that sort of behaviour out and make THEM look like the asshole.
But then again, if eveyone already knows you're an asshole what've you got to loose?
Y'know, you could argue that there's two completely different kinds of Incomplete Quote.
If you're using it against other people on a forum it's a fairly limited tool. They know what they meant, it's there for everyone to read, and they'll call you out on it, so it's utterly useless for winning a serious argument. Of course, if you're not winning a serious argument it's pure gold. It should be a standard weapon in the arsenal of anyone who's just playing for points, trying to get someone to explode, or being silly.
The other kind of course is when someone backs their argument with outside evidence and deliberately omits everything which doesn't support their claim. It's a far sneakier tool and one that's alarmingly easy to get away with on a forum where research and sources aren't commonly used, but there's mondo potential for disaster if you get caught doing it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum