Google| Subject | Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 07/20/2014 08:55 (07/20/2014 08:55) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlsmqad.gah.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | PeterN |
| Followups | PeterN (17h & 49m) > Sandman |
In article <lqeik40luv@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net>wrote:
Excuse me while I laugh myself nearly to death.PeterNPeterNSandman
You are proficient enough with research to understand the academic meaning of "peer reviewed."
True, I was making a joke. I made it to point out that the meaning and definition of expressions aren't peer reviewed. I mean, it's not like you pointed me to a "peer reviewed" definition of "taken out of context" that disagrees with wikipedia.
As a former editor and professor, I would qualify as an expert in contemporary English usage in most courts.
The concept is really simple: If important context is missing from a quote, which context gives meaning to the original statement, the quote can be considered as taken out of c9ntext. [end of English lesson.]Weren't you supposed to come up with something that disagreed with wikipedia? Because what you just said agrees with wikipedia 100%.
It also disagrees with your earlier statement:
07/16/2014 <lq6fes0219n@news6.newsguy.com> "Do look up what the phrase: "taken out of context,: means. You will quickly see that it does not mean anything was removed."
And now you're saying that for something to be taken out of context, important context must be missing (i.e. removed, omitted etc).
For the record, I agree with your latter definition, which also agress with Wikipedia. It's your initial comment I questioned.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/10/2014-
