Skip to main content
news

Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: Adobe's Low hanging .... ?
FromSandman
Date07/21/2014 07:29 (07/21/2014 07:29)
Message-ID<slrnlsp9m5.jb7.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsPeterN
In article <lqhnp60vdd@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN wrote:

Sandman
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.

PeterN
Let's go back to the original situation that brought this about.

Sure. Here is your post: 1: <http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=191493>

And here is nospam's reply to it: 2: <http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=191505>

To which you replied 3: <http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=191531>

"And you selectively take comments out of context. But it doesn't matter. We all know what you are, and act accordingly."

Please tell me what in post number 2 was taken out of context from post numbr 1.

He did remove your one-word "Wrong." sentence, but other than that, all the text that was in your post appeared in his followup. So again, what was taken out of context?

nosense quoted me without expressly stating the context. Wen I called him on that, he claimed he didn't leave the context out because my original statement was still in the entire document. With his snipping style, it is not easy to determine who said what. His style only leaves in the name of the last poster.

So, the "context" here is not what you said, but his supposed lack of proper attribution? I can understand that in a discussion with several people, that can become disorienting for some, but in these two posts, all the content was from either you or nospam, and you should have had no problem identifying what parts you wrote and what parts nospam wrote.

His post had an attribution line on top of his post, but nospam usually trims all nested attribution lines, which I think is perfectly fine.

-- Sandman[.net]