Clarification requested on Flaming definition (pt. 5)

[Daubechies4]

This may never come up for me, but I thought I should get it out of the way in advance (I'm new here).

I've occasionally had the experience on other forums of another user responding to something he or she thought I wrote, when in fact I wrote something quite different. Typically it's evident that this happened because my post was rather long and the responding user read only the beginning, simply inferring the rest.

On other forums, I would say something like, "Ah, but that's not what I wrote. In particular, about that issue, I said, 'blah, blah, blah'" (quoting or referring to my former post).

Saying, "that's not what I wrote," however, is in no uncertain terms telling a user that he or she, "clearly didn't read what I wrote," which appears to be considered a violation of the rules (Flaming, bullet point #5) here--in fact, it's even counted as a major infraction.

So what is the correct way of handling a situation like this? If I said, "I think you've misunderstood me, what I wrote was, 'blah, blah, blah'" would that be ok? I'm not sure it's any less of an accusation than, "that's not what I wrote," but it seems a bit more oblique. Perhaps that would make it even worse, though (i.e. because I might be perceived as trying to abuse a loophole)?

Sorry, this is probably silly.

Thanks in advance.

[Winterwind]

Welcome to the forums!

Well, I'm no mod, but I think as long as you keep up a friendly demeanour and politely clarify what you actually meant, nobody is going to have any problems.

[Tirian]

It's a good thing to work out. If you can work out online communication etiquette, then that will serve you well everywhere on the net. (I'm not a mod either.)

If you're in a thread about, I don't know, bicycles, then the key is to spend most of your effort talking about bicycles. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the starting a paragraph with "You misunderstand me," as long as you don't spend the rest of the paragraph talking about "you" or "me". Here are two samples:

You misunderstand me. What, were you dropped on your head as a child? Go back and read what I said again, and ask a grown up to explain any of the big words that confuse you.

You misunderstand my point. Undeniably, training wheels are important when you're learning to ride a bicycle, but I don't think that it's truly a two-wheeled vehicle until you've taken them off.

See the difference? The first is a major infraction, and the second is so genial that it wouldn't even cross someone's mind to escalate the disagreement on personal grounds. Mind you, almost all of the middle ground is safe from trouble too, and the mods aren't desperate to eject posters without plenty of warnings, but you may as well aim for writing so politely that no one would imagine reporting you in the first place.

Also, for what it's worth, when someone sharply disagrees with your point, sometimes the best policy is not responding at all. If all you're going to do is repeat the point that you've already made, then hey, it's already there, right?

[bluewind95]

Hmm... maybe if instead of writing "what I wrote was..." you could say "what I meant was..." and word it differently. Then you're not implying that the person didn't read, just that well, they interpreted it differently from what you wanted to say. That is... if it really is a misunderstanding. If it's outright disagreement, it really depends on how much animosity there is. If there's too much, like the above poster said, best to just steer clear.

[Daubechies4]

Ok, thanks to both of you. Sounds like I'm good because I've never posted an ad hominem ("dropped on your head as a child?") in any forum--even when it is allowed.

I'm still glad I went over the rules because I never would have guessed there was any problem with stuff like "thread necromancy." If anything, people are usually reprimanded for creating new threads instead of reviving old ones (no matter how old) concerning the same topic. I was confused about that too, but there was already discussion about it here which made the reasoning clear to me.

I didn't see any commentary about this other issue ("that's not what I wrote"), however. The reasoning behind it is obvious (unlike thread necromancy), but the nuances are trickier.

[Zeb The Troll]

Another time when it would be appropriate to reiterate your statement is when, and this happens often, some important modifying word was left out in the skimming of the statement.

For example:

I do not think it's a good idea to leave training wheels on a bicycle for more than six months. Opinion, statements, and observations explaining why.

What? Why would you leave training wheels on for that long? If the student is putting any effort into it at all they'll have no need of them long before then.

Ah, see, but I said "I do NOT think..." So in fact, we agree.

Again, the key is to keep it civil instead of inciteful.

[Charity]

Again, the key is to keep it civil instead of inciteful.

Or perhaps just insightful...