Sandman
In article <lq8nk101r8@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN wrote:

PeterN
And just where did I used the word "removed." Do learn to read.

nospam
you said "selectively take comments out of context".

the entire post was quoted (again) and nothing was removed at all, therefore nothing could be taken out of context.

do learn to read.

PeterN
Do look up what the phrase: "taken out of context,: means. You will quickly see that it does not mean anything was removed.

Sandman
Ehm, if something is taken *out* of context, then the context need to be missing, right? Looking it up, as per your request, I find this:

<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. :)

PeterN
Then you have been using the expression incorrectly. In American usage the term also means ignoring ignoring the words that explain what is intended.

Sandman
Yeah, but give me an example of doing so while also not taking something out of its context, as per the wikipedia explanation.

PeterN
While Wikipedia can be helpful, it is not peer reviewed and therefore is not considered authoritative. See Tony Cooper's explanation.

Sandman
Uh, his explanation agreed with wikipedia, his quote did not include the context from the original text. It removed it.

And "peer reviewed"? Is this the review board behind this book:

<>