When you quote a person you’re supposed to restate what they said word by word. If you editorialize it, then it’s no longer a quote but your intrepretation of it.
That’s not what a straw man is at all. Why do you hate dictionaries? Now that is a straw man.
Also, there’s nothing inaccurate in the paraphrasing present. Joe made a claim that we don’t have the technology today to build the pyramids because he thinks we couldn’t get the quarried blocks out of the mountains. Removing the additional words after pyramids in that sentence doesn’t change the ending, it just removes the explanation of why.
What you’re doing is being pedantic, but poorly because you keep getting it wrong.
Nah, word for word reproductions are also extremely easy to take out of context. So no, I don’t put much value on quotes, especially short ones on 4chan.
Joe is still claiming we don’t have the technology to build the pyramids even with that context.
When you quote a person you’re supposed to restate what they said word by word. If you editorialize it, then it’s no longer a quote but your intrepretation of it.
It’s greentext, dude, it’s not a verbatim quote. Nobody believes it is.
It isn’t even a complete sentence, it’s two fragments.
It’s called paraphrasing and it’s completely acceptable.
Yes if you represent their words accurately - if not then it’s called a strawman
That’s not what a straw man is at all. Why do you hate dictionaries? Now that is a straw man.
Also, there’s nothing inaccurate in the paraphrasing present. Joe made a claim that we don’t have the technology today to build the pyramids because he thinks we couldn’t get the quarried blocks out of the mountains. Removing the additional words after pyramids in that sentence doesn’t change the ending, it just removes the explanation of why.
What you’re doing is being pedantic, but poorly because you keep getting it wrong.
Nah, word for word reproductions are also extremely easy to take out of context. So no, I don’t put much value on quotes, especially short ones on 4chan.