}>}>}(a) out of context;
}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}>}
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}>
}>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}
}(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
}(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
}     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
}(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
}     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A

Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that
you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said
your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.

}(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
}     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
}     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.

}Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
}explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
}may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."