this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
407 points (98.6% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2430 readers
903 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I shouldn’t have to spoon feed information that’s already been presented… if someone didn’t read the original article, why am I gonna think someone is gonna read an entire linked portion of it?
I provided enough information to prove my point, and if people cared about the conversation, they would find the rest to join in.
You proved my point in a way.
You know the end, the enemy fell for his tactic, and left. The details are immaterial at this point, as the whole original story with the lute is embellished.
It's not about spoon feeding, it's about not quoting something and leaving an incomplete sentence at the end. It's...
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.
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......
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…?
I'll try to explain again.
Here's the quote. Note the bold italic text at the end:
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.
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.
… 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….
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.
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….
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...
Lmfao, again you show your laziness or at this point frankly pure ineptitude/arrogance to read provided source material, that’s literally how you remove irrelevant information from the end of the quote…. My Link even talked about this.
I’m gonna just block your trolling ass now. Everyone but you seems to understood how the quote works… You are, just as explained before, making an ass out yourself at this point. Twice now you’ve ignored provided source material. The fuck is wrong with you?