Being on point and following what was quoted isn't petty. It is pretty relevant.
We are talking about your post at 520, as already pointed out.
You quoted my conversation with another but your reply did not follow what was being disused in those quotes. And here you now are making more of an issue out of it for some reason.
2. "the quote that's been attributed to" is an acknowledgement of to whom it was attributed.
3. Your statement acknowledges the words were attributed to a specific witness but may apply to another.
4. The article was updated the include the witness's name
2. Your interpretation of my motivations is a manifestation of your own thoughts.
3. And was said in reply to his snipe of "You still don't seem to understand what a quote is.".
Have you not seen the back and forth?
Unlike you, he wouldn't admit that the author attributed the quote to the witness. To admit that would be an admittance that my arguments in regards to that were correct, as that is what the information stated.
But as it is, it took two of us. So spare me the bs of only pointing out one side.
At least I admitted to the possibility that the author could have badly worded his article.
Yes you asked that, after admitting that the reporter attributed the words to the witness. Asking such makes no sense in such light.
And the author attributing those words in "quotes" to the witness, is saying they are direct quotes of that witness.
2. We are discussing the available information/evidence. What the author reported is part of that information.
That specific information was quoted and attributed to the witness and has been corrected to include the witness's name.
That is pretty relevant information to this debate. Yet he wouldn't acknowledge that and wanted to play his denial game.
3. This wasn't the only argument made in reference to the statements, it was just the one he wouldn't acknowledge.
But it is what the wording indicates. Yet he wanted to go round and round with the bs.
Thank you for admitting that.
There is no "he could have been wrong" in reference to what he quoted. He had the info in his hands.
It could only be that he poorly worded his report, which I previously acknowledged.