Does this headline seem fair to you? He’s a former ambulance driver, and his complaint is the new cycle lanes will prevent vehicles from moving out of the way of an ambulance. The headline presents this as him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one. It seems like a very clickbaity way to present the article if you ask me.
That phrase does not appear in the article. Why are you using a quote that doesn’t exist?
This is the crux of the article, which both you and Dave seem unable to comprehend. It seems like a reasonable concern to me.
Because it’s clear that’s not actually an issue, on account of the massive median strip.
This isn’t an uncommon use of the tool - kind of a mocking TLDR I guess. In this case I can understand it’s not necessarily clear that it’s use it satirical.Edit: Turns out the quote was of the body text from this postdeleted by creator
He quoted your text you dingus.
Did you not read the entire comment chain?
I did. And you said, and I quote:
Because he used the quote symbol for something that wasn’t a quote.
Quoting something I said, in a manner that completely changes what was said, and presenting it in a manner that makes it sound like it came from the article is shifty as hell.
You are the only one who thinks any of that. It was perfectly clear he was quoting you. And no, he didn’t “completely change what was said”.
VS
You don’t see how this changes anything?
The whole point of this post was to query whether RNZ represented his views fairly with the headline, as I felt they did him dirty.
Somewhat disappointingly, most commenters seem to have missed that point.
As mentioned by DarkThoughts, he is quoting something that exsists: Your own text in this post.
This does not appear in the article, which is heavily implied by the way he used it.
He’s also used the quote in a way where it completely changes what was said, which isn’t cool either