Was I morally wrong, technically incorrect, or both? Or neither?

[Jenny in GA]

This seems like a good "Hive" sort of question ...

 

On a Yahoo Group there had been several threads (mostly started by me) a couple months ago tying together to a related topic. Someone named Mary was the most vocal in these threads, posting many lengthy posts many times, mostly directed at me specifically.

 

This week someone else on that list made a comment that reminded me of the direction those earlier threads had gone down.

 

I posted in response:

 

Yes, that reminds me of what Mary and some others seemed to be trying to convince me of a couple months. The thought seemed to basically be along the lines of, "You need to stop pursuing this, because you're apparently not very good at it and you're probably wasting your time."

snip

snip

 

Of course, that may not be what you're saying. (And for that matter, that may not have been what Mary was saying, either.)

 

 

Well, Mary responded and took me to task for this.

 

She said that she never told me I was not good, and would not have said that. She said that it was "inaccurate" for me to put quotes on something that I thought I remembered a few months ago about something that multiple people said. She also said I needed to stop using quotes if they were not the exact words that a person had spoke/typed, and that she did not appreciate being quoted publically something that she did not say.

 

I found this curious, because I thouht it was obvious that I wasn't directly quoting her, because:

 

1) The fact that I said "Mary and others." Would someone actually mis-interpret it that multiple people all said the exact same words??

 

2) My writing "seemed to be along the lines of" made it pretty clear that I was summing up an impression and not claiming those were anyone's specific words

 

 

I thought it made sense (and was obvious) that I was quoting an idea and an overall message I was getting.

 

So I have two questions for you guys:

1) Was it technically incorrect (ie, incorrect punctuation) to use quotes in that manner?

2) Was it wrong of me, in a moral sense, to "quote Mary" in this way when those weren't her exact words? In other words, did I mis-represent her? Is it understandable that she would be upset with me?

 

Thanks!

[Ellie]

So I have two questions for you guys:

1) Was it technically incorrect (ie, incorrect punctuation) to use quotes in that manner?

Yes.

 

2) Was it wrong of me, in a moral sense, to "quote Mary" in this way when those weren't her exact words? In other words, did I mis-represent her? Is it understandable that she would be upset with me?

Yes.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Actually I'm going to disagree with Ellie on both points and say that I don't think you were wrong on either point. But you might have been unwise to try and summarize what someone else was saying because people always come back to say that they were being misconstrued;)

[Caitilin]

I vote neither. :001_smile: the quotes were to specify an idea, not act as a direct quotation, which is a perfectly acceptable use of quotation marks, and you did not represent Mary's view, only what you understood Mary's view to be. I think you were very reasonable. :001_smile:

[LaxMom]

:iagree:

[Anita in NC]

I think you are worrying way too much about it.

 

Just let it go and move on.

[k2bdeutmeyer]

I vote neither. :001_smile: the quotes were to specify an idea, not act as a direct quotation, which is a perfectly acceptable use of quotation marks, and you did not represent Mary's view, only what you understood Mary's view to be. I think you were very reasonable. :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

[Jenny in GA]

I think you are worrying way too much about it.

 

Just let it go and move on.

 

Ha ha! :lol:

 

Well part of it is really that I like to be grammatically correct. If I making a mistake (on either count), then I just wanted to know so I don't make that mistake again.

 

OP

[myfunnybunch]

the quotes were to specify an idea, not act as a direct quotation, which is a perfectly acceptable use of quotation marks, and you did not represent Mary's view, only what you understood Mary's view to be.

 

I agree. However, you would have been wiser to leave Mary's name out of it altogether.

 

Cat

[Ellie]

I can let the quotes go. :D

 

But probably it wasn't a good idea to mention anyone by name. You can see what the results were.

[Ester Maria]

You were fine, people need to stop looking for excuses to get offended. That is a normal dynamic of written communication, you can strive to be as accurate and as technically correct as possible, but a lapsus or two will always happen and is not meant to be taken literally. Also, you put the disclaimer in that "along the lines of".

 

Now, if I were Mary and PMSing :D, I would probably ask for exact quotes from you and then argue that you are misrepresenting / taking out of context / cannot read sarcasm / cannot read 'tone' / are being too literal / are reading into / whatever else I thought was the case. But based on your isolated excerpt, I do not find anything wrong with it.

[twoforjoy]

I don't think you were morally or technically incorrect. You were probably fighting a losing battle, though, because any time you say something like that, people will say you totally misrepresented them.

[Truscifi]

I don't think you were morally or technically incorrect. You were probably fighting a losing battle, though, because any time you say something like that, people will say you totally misrepresented them.

 

:iagree:

[unsinkable]

Yup. That sort of thing just incites people.

 

Yeah. I agree with WendyK when she writes about "inciting people."

 

:lol:

[Hwin]

Given the way you prefaced your quote, you weren't her quoting word for word. (Even though that's what quoting is... which is why you should have just paraphrased without the quotation marks.)

 

As far as whether you should have brought it up, I'm not good at those questions. But I can't imagine a scenario where Mary wouldn't want to chime in and paint a prettier picture of what she really said/was trying to say.

[unsinkable]

For me, when you wrote "along the lines of" I would NOT have taken that as a direct quote. I would have thought you were just trying to make the thought/idea stand out.

 

DOes that make sense?

 

I'd rather have you use quotes like that, with the disclaimer than use quotes and type paragraphs of what someone else said. I always wonder HOW in the WORLD someone could quote exactly line after line of conversation.

[4wildberrys]

I

But probably it wasn't a good idea to mention anyone by name. You can see what the results were.

 

:iagree: It's been my experience too that mentioning people by name about things like this usually doesn't turn out too well ;)

[Night Elf]

1) Was it technically incorrect (ie, incorrect punctuation) to use quotes in that manner?

 

I'm guilty of doing that too. Sometimes though, I use the apostrophe to show it's a sort of quote, but I highly doubt that is grammatically correct either. :tongue_smilie:

 

2) Was it wrong of me, in a moral sense, to "quote Mary" in this way when those weren't her exact words? In other words, did I mis-represent her? Is it understandable that she would be upset with me?

Well, yes, I would say that is wrong simply because you used her name specifically and no one else's name. That really does single her out. Instead, I would have just referred to a past thread with a similar message.

[Rosie_0801]

Yeah, of course it is wrong to say anything anyone might disagree with. :rolleyes:

 

Using her name was a bad idea, but really, some people are so sensitive (word used without value judgment) they will jump up and down if they think you had them in mind, even if you didn't say so.

 

Rosie

[Daisy]

I tend to think it is best to leave the past in the past.

 

I'd say your use of quotation marks was incorrect and your bringing up the past was unwise, but we all make mistakes. Apologize and move on.

[angela in ohio]

I tend to think it is best to leave the past in the past.

 

I agree.

 

The post makes it seem like you aren't over what she/they said, and you wanted to fire another shot. I would have been suprised if Mary didn't respond.

[Little Nyssa]

I don't think it was morally wrong, or incorrect, but possibly it might have been more prudent not to rake it up again?

I'm not sure I would like to participate on that board, whatever it is!

[Laurie4b]

I agree. However, you would have been wiser to leave Mary's name out of it altogether.

 

Cat

 

:iagree: I agree that what you wrote was clear, and it was grammatically correct. I also agree that while it may not have been morally wrong, it was unwise.

 

If you kind of had a beef with Mary, then I would guess that it actually crossed the line to morally wrong. If you didn't really care, but were summarizing a discussion, then just unwise, maybe even provocative (whether on purpose or not.) I think using someone's name will predictably be read as calling them out.

[Hannah C.]

I think you didn't use the quotation marks to show that you were *quoting* Mary directly. Instead, you used them like one would use quotation marks in a book - to set off the words as dialogue separate from what you were writing at the time. I think your statement before the actual "quotation" made it clear that you were not directly quoting them, but rather summing up their ideas. Obviously there was still room for misunderstanding though, as is so often the case on the Internet.

[Margo out of lurking]

Actually I'm going to disagree with Ellie on both points and say that I don't think you were wrong on either point.

 

:iagree:

 

Too often, people like Mary have no other life and will argue over any point. On the plus side, everyone on your list probably already knows how she is.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually I'm going to disagree with Ellie on both points and say that I don't think you were wrong on either point. But you might have been unwise to try and summarize what someone else was saying because people always come back to say that they were being misconstrued;)

 

:iagree: when I do something like this I add (paraphrasing) just before the quote. Your post was clear to me, I think it was fine.

[Ellie]

I'm guilty of doing that too. Sometimes though, I use the apostrophe to show it's a sort of quote, but I highly doubt that is grammatically correct either. :tongue_smilie:

That would be a single quotation mark. ;-) It used to be common in British books, where we would use double quotation marks. Makes me crazy when I read LOTR, lol.