4,994
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: No, I don't think that Dembski story solved anything, because you have done a little quote mining yourself in order to tell it the way that you did. You ran together 2 quotes that are really 5 pages apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:49, 8 March 2007 (EST)
: No, I don't think that Dembski story solved anything, because you have done a little quote mining yourself in order to tell it the way that you did. You ran together 2 quotes that are really 5 pages apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:49, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::It was the only reliable source that had responded to a quote mine so I ran with it with out realizing that they were separated, my mistake, I have reverted to the old quote and weaved in your information, removing the now irrelevant text. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::It was the only reliable source that had responded to a quote mine so I ran with it with out realizing that they were separated, my mistake, I have reverted to the old quote and weaved in your information, removing the now irrelevant text. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)
But the new example isn't an example of "quote mining," it's an example of plain old "quotation out of context." Unless you can find a reference that says it's ever referred to as "quote mining" outside of talk.origins, CreationWiki, and other discussions specifically of evolution/creationism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)