Google| Subject | Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 07/18/2014 08:40 (07/18/2014 08:40) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlshgln.5h1.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
In article <d3sfs91gnnbeble7j4g9fc4jda8mpaook3@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
PeterNTony Cooper
Then you have been using the expression incorrectly. In American usage the term also means ignoring ignoring the words that explain what is intended. While Wikipedia can be helpful, it is not peer reviewed and therefore is not considered authoritative. See Tony Cooper's explanation.
It's not just American usage. The expression should mean the same thing to anyone using it...in any country.
The Wikipedia article is accurate as far as it goes. The contributors to the article just never considered that anyone would think that the original statement being present or not present where a quote out of context is made needed to be discussed. I am somewhat amazed that Jonas does.Andreas making shit up again to start an argument.
It doesn't make any difference at all if the original statement is present or not to have a quote out of context. What makes a difference is if the statement that is the quote out of context omits some context that changes the meaning of how the quote out of context is used.Andreas is trying to spin reality in a way where he can continue arguing while at the same time not agreeing 100% with wikipedia and my claims. Will he make it? Tune in next week to find out - he'll probably argue the exact same thing even then.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/10/2014-
