4 ms·

Is that an actual full quote? When something like "says Gore" is jammed in the middle of a quote, I always suspect there was something else in between. It could

Is that an actual full quote? When something like "says Gore" is jammed in the middle of a quote, I always suspect there was something else in between. It could be "umm" or it could be something that changes the meaning of the entire sentence.

undersuit 9y ago
It's the start of the full quote. I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA. >“I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.” It's a common technique to split a quote like this to identify the speaker and while it's good to be skeptical you should be skeptical of all information, this particular form of quoting is no less and no more infallible to manipulation than the rest of English.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  > I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA. The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article. Even if you've so concluded, > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - undersuit 9y ago
    Yep I kinda wish I could take back the RTFA part, still they could have gone back to the article and searched the page with Ctrl+F just like I did and discovered the full quote. Then they wouldn't have to submit an easily answered question to HN and could have gone on to question the authenticity of the article and it would have been an entirely different comment.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      I think at this point we're talking past each other a bit. As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer. I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.

undersuit 9y ago

It's the start of the full quote. I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA. >“I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.” It's a common technique to split a quote like this to identify the speaker and while it's good to be skeptical you should be skeptical of all information, this particular form of quoting is no less and no more infallible to manipulation than the rest of English.

dllthomas 9y ago
> I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA. The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article. Even if you've so concluded, > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- undersuit 9y ago
  Yep I kinda wish I could take back the RTFA part, still they could have gone back to the article and searched the page with Ctrl+F just like I did and discovered the full quote. Then they wouldn't have to submit an easily answered question to HN and could have gone on to question the authenticity of the article and it would have been an entirely different comment.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    I think at this point we're talking past each other a bit. As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer. I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.