Google| Subject | Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 07/18/2014 07:30 (07/18/2014 07:30) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlshci7.5bn.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (1d & 20m) > Sandman |
In article <otqfs9t4j9a4istr3gla0buv88mbjs1d2p@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
So you can't say, huh.Tony CooperTony CooperSandman
If you have concluded that the original passage has to be removed or not visible, then you misunderstand the explanation.
In what way did I misunderstand it, supposedly?
I explained it clearly, cogently, and completely. If you can't follow the explanation, ask for assistance from someone with reading skills.
I'll take that as a yes.Tony CooperWhen 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"?
I mean exactly what I wrote.
Tony CooperIf 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*.
Put on your reading glasses, Jonas. I said: The phrase "borders are secure" has been quoted out of context even if the original statement is presented intact and visible to read.
I did not say the original statement is not present in the quote.No, I did. The original text is not present in the quote. Hence, the quote is taken out of context, and context has been omitted. In other words, 100% in agreement with the wikipedia definition you claim is wrong.
Your last paragraph above shows that you still don't understand the meaning of "quoted out of context". If the statement alleged to be a quote out of context contained all of the original context, it would not be a quote out of context.Which is what I said from the beginning. Why all this text to just agree with me?
You're trying too hard to disagree. Stop and think this one out.Ironic. I am the one asking Peter what he mean and how I had been using it and how wikipedia seemed to agree with me. Along came Andreas Skitsnack, bent on arguing something he doesn't understand, as always. This is what you do - jump in on discussions with this:
<http://z0r.de/175>
Your premise that it can't be a quote out of context if the context is still visible in the post when you said: "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." is patently wrong.Incorrect, as your example showed, where the context had been removed from the quote to change its meaning. Again, whether or not the original passage is also available to read elsewhere in the post is irrelevant, the quote itself omitted the context, i.e. removed it.
For the context to be right there, your example would have looked like this:
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 'The United State's borders are secure as they can be considering the number of people assigned to keeping our borders secured.', but hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross our borders every year."
But then again, that wouldn't be taking it out of context.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/10/2014-
