Sandman
In article <euifs9pcv3ba9dri4o5olnk8eepbitdg4a@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context>

Which, in short says it means:

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning"

So, according to this explanation, it surely means you have to remove something in order to take something out of context. Which incidentally is exactly how I have used the phrase all these years. And by logic, it's the only thing it *can* mean, seeing how it couldn't be taken out of context if the context is still right there. :)

Tony Cooper
If you have concluded that the original passage has to be removed or not visible, then you misunderstand the explanation.

Sandman
In what way did I misunderstand it, supposedly?

Was it this part:

"in which a passage is removed"

Tony Cooper
When something is "taken out of context", it is discussed without referring to the context in which it originally appeared and as if the surrounding context doesn't apply to the meaning.

Sandman
Do you mean that it has been removed from the "surrounding context"?

Tony Cooper
If this statement is made:

"The United State's borders are secure as they can be considering the number of people assigned to keeping our borders secured."

And someone says:

"You say our 'borders are secure', but hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross our borders every year."

The phrase "borders are secure" has been quoted out of context even if the original statement is presented intact and visible to read.

Sandman
No, the original statement is *not* present in the quote. It has been taken out of its context and presented without it, removing the intended meaning of the quote. Whether or not the original text is present or not is not relevant to the fact that it was omitted from the *quote*.