MMM, Slander doesn't mean what you think it means. Not even libel. Bad journalistic reporting at worst. Your original text stands and thus anyone with half a brain would understand I changed it (evenwithout the FIFY), and as such the words are mine. I'll stand by wait for the head office to reassign me.
You've provided the perfect example of why your misuse of the ability to edit quotes is wrong:
1.
I have the right to not express an opinion, and I will defend that right. You took my glib, off-the-cuff statement and ascribed YOUR opinion to it in my name, thereby depriving me of my rights.
2. When I complained,
you used an ad hominem attack to conclude that I must disagree with your opinion because I disagreed with what you have done. You thereby made me appear to be your opponent, and the opponent of anyone else who shares your opinion.
3. It is not acceptable to say that it's inconsequential, i.e. "anyone with half a brain would understand" since the original text in my comment is unchanged.
Casual readers should not have to fact-check every quoted post to ensure that they're not altered. Someone may scroll past some posts and only stop on ones which others have replied to, since they were obviously interesting enough to garner a response. (I do that when I'm speed-reading through a forum thread to catch-up.) So a reader may only see the mis-quoted post and thereby form an opinion about me. Lots of people, especially on a car forum, can't be expected to know what the internet slang term "FIFY" is.
3a. "anyone with half a brain would understand" ... Abusive fallacy is another type of ad hominem character attack.
4. This is a slippery slope. Yours was a minor transgression on a relatively backwater forum, but if you made a mis-statement in someone's name about a popular topic which then got picked-up by a search engine, they could wind-up with a lot of unwanted attention. Can you imagine the trainwreck that would ensue if Twitter allowed the power to edit a quoted post?!
5. Because of all of the above, as well as your most recent post which I quoted above, what you have done IS slanderous. Your
attempt to discredit me as not knowing what I'm talking about, and compare me to the MSM, are two more types of ad hominem attack (credentials fallacy, association fallacy).
slander: make false and damaging statements about (someone).
If you still don't get it after this explanation, then I think you're part of what's wrong with society today.
