• samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    It’s not about spoon feeding, it’s about not quoting something and leaving an incomplete sentence at the end. It’s…

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      what…?

      It’s normal to leave irrelevant information out of quotes to make information succinct.

      I’m sorry you took offense to a totally normal thing and the information is already there for you. I originally only provided the quote to make fun of the person who obviously didn’t read the original article. Now you’re just making yourself look silly for not understanding making things succinct…

      There’s just no pleasing people eh? A wall of text is too much, so do them a favor and some other person has to bloviate about their laziness to read source material.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        It’s normal to leave irrelevant information out of quotes to make information succinct.

        Yes, and you did the opposite, leaving incomplete information at the end.

        This was originally supposed to be a light-hearted joke about the dangling name at the end, but you took it REALLY seriously. Zhuge Liang…

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          again… what…?

          The information was provided by OP, I was providing a quote to a specific person.

          I don’t give a shit about anything that comes after. If you want more information, like the person I responded to. Read the fucking source material lmfao.

          Seriously, what is wrong with people and engaging in comments without reading articles or the even the provided source material…? You’re only making yourself look silly here mate.

          Your “light hearted” joke stopped being that when you asked for clarification, so which is it actually…?

          • samus12345@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            I’ll try to explain again.

            Here’s the quote. Note the bold italic text at the end:

            Zhuge Liang garrisoned at Yangping (陽平; around present-day Hanzhong, Shaanxi) and ordered Wei Yan to lead the troops east. He left behind only 10,000 men to defend Yangping. Sima Yi led 200,000 troops to attack Zhuge Liang and he took a shortcut, bypassing Wei Yan’s army and arriving at a place 60 li away from Zhuge Liang’s location. Upon inspection, Sima Yi realised that Zhuge Liang’s city was weakly defended. Zhuge Liang knew that Sima Yi was near, so he thought of recalling Wei Yan’s army back to counter Sima Yi, but it was too late already and his men were worried and terrified. Zhuge Liang……

            Clearly you just made a mistake and left in a bit of text from the following sentence unintentionally. That’s what I’ve been talking about all this time, not any of the things you’ve been talking about in your replies. I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              16 hours ago

              I left the little bit of text so people knew there was still more to the story….

              That’s normal for quotes, to show there’s more, but it’s not relevant to the story.

              Clearly you just made a mistake and left in a bit of text from the following sentence unintentionally. That’s what I’ve been talking about all this time.

              … no… intentional… and speaking of talking about this entire time…

              The rest of the story, as explained multiple times… by the embellished OP story, the wiki article, the article about Liang, and the specific historical account… his renown preceded him, they took his bait, and left. What’s the point of quoting the same shit for the umpteenth time…? The linked article has the information, I’m sorry you can’t be arsed to due a prime effort in your end to get already presented information…. The fuck is wrong with people… seriously….

              • samus12345@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                This never had anything to do with wanting more information, just wondering why you left the dangling name. I’ve never seen anything like that done intentionally before. Thank you for clarifying.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  It’s normal Lexicon and is well used in articles and other relevant media.

                  Quite shocking that you’ve never seen this quite normal thing before….

                  • samus12345@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    I’m very familiar with that, and that’s not how that works. It still needs to be a complete sentence with the words omitted. You don’t just…