Re:The agricultural revolution that wasn't
by _delirium on Saturday August 09, 2014 @10:11PM
(#8158619)
I think it's pretty clear from context that it was a paraphrase, especially since the phrase "must have been X of this particular type" is clearly a template phrase. It's a fairly common English construction; "oh won't someone please think of the children" in quotes as a response to an article doesn't imply that the article linked actually contains that phrase.
However at least the comments here are no stupider than the HN norm, when it comes to non-programming scientific topics. The frontpage right now contains two pseudoscientific bullshit stories: something from The Atlantic about "Toxins That Threaten Our Brains" (that's a verbatim quote), and this run-of-the-mill evo-psych bullshit.
Re:The agricultural revolution that wasn't
by slurry on Saturday August 09, 2014 @10:14PM
(#8158622)
I think it's a legit point. If I had to do it again I would have used italics.
Re:The agricultural revolution that wasn't
by Houshalter on Sunday August 10, 2014 @03:45PM
(#8160516)
I agree although I wish there were paraphrase quotes, or some way to make paraphrasing clear, because it's very useful.
The article does not contain that phrase. Please don't use quotation marks on HN when you are not quoting.
It's particularly bad to put words in someone else's mouth when the words are so inflammatory.