Just wanted to see how many people claimed mistake before I posted
Patiently waiting for opinions on what has happened here, or someone to tell this nutjob JG that he is clearly crossing lines now, after top toeing over them for so long with so many people.
Have you ever considered a possibility that he simply misquoted you? I know that happened to me more than once, especially when I am replying to several different members at the same time like in this case.
You could have asked him that right and there instead creating yet another thread.
I agree with Rikafip here. It's just a simple case of a misquote, and it can happen to all of us, especially if we forget to hit that preview button.
@BenCodie, you had a similar incident here when you misquoted Poker Player, making it seem like his words were yours:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62888885And you never bothered to fix that misquote either.
If you misquote a post genuinely, you are still replying to the post that you read. Your response proves the bbcode error which is why it doesn't matter much. Formatting comes after quoting, if it's a long post. Errors like mine can only happen to formatted posts. Sometimes on mobile that process goes wrong. However, JollyGood did not misquote. He intentionally modified the quote author. As he responded
as if I were the one who made Don Pedro Dinero's post. It's one thing misquoting due to broken code, it's another to modify its content. When you misquote due to broken code, you still reply to the same thing, a third party can make sense of the mistake. If this was not the case, FatFork could not have pointed out my broken quote as he had. This is not the case for JollyGood though. If you go through his post history, the unknowing eye would read the post normally and the content would seem untampered with as JollyGood is apparently trusted, and because it's a finely formatted post, the BBCode integrity is 99%, the 1% being the incorrect quote author, changed from Don Pedro Dinero to BenCodie in one instance only,
What does this 1% do to post integrity if further content stems from that one modification? What do I mean by "further content"?
Have you all read the same thing I did? What a stunning way for this deranged person to contradict himself
Around 5% of the entire post is now fictional. It is not just some harmless piece of fiction like "the sky is red", this fictional piece involves reputation of a community member. To the unknowing eye, it claims
and proves (proves, if I actually made the post) that I am deranged, that I contradict myself, it tarnishes my reputation quite significantly as the post ages and as more people read and believe JollyGood's post...All achieved just by changing "Don Pedro Dinero" to "BenCodie", then replying as if BenCodie made "Don Pedro Dinero"'s post.
An accident is not what JollyGood has done here. He has replied to another users post as if it were myself who made the post. This is not something that can be accidentally done with code. It can only be done intentionally. It is not possible for JG to have accidentally misformatted the post. If you read the archived post in full, you will see that JollyGood was not replying to Don Pedro Dinero and accidentally quot me. In fact, he quoted Don't Pedro Dinero, made me the author of Don Pedro Dinero's post, and replied to it as if I had made Don Pedro Dinero's post. This is proven by what he said right after the misquoted post:
Have you all read the same thing I did? What a stunning way for this deranged person to contradict himself
If I had made the post that Don Pedro Dinero had made, then indeed, I would be deranged and JollyGood would be right, what he quoted looks like I am deranged and that I've stunningly contradicted myself. He even almost convinced me, almost. For those who aren't me, they would have (and still) believe the post is 100% factual as JollyGood is a trusted figure and, unless someone points out an error, majority of his posts will come across as factual by default.
I am surprised no one has gone and actually looked into the posts or understands the problem being highlighted. It is a serious one. If this kind of thing is allowed, this completely damages the integrity of the quote system. I hope that this explanation open some eyes.