[TheBrotherhood]

The quote was taken from a long article and I quoted the pertinent part, not the entire article. But there are no modifications to the quote - it's verbatim as I found it. Did you expect me to quote the entire article? If I quote a paragraph or part therof from a book, by your logic it's an edited quote since I did not quote the entire book.

[TheBrotherhood]

therof = thereof

[VadeRetro]

You cited a quote that a scholar named Moore concluded a visit occurred as the evidence that makes "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" a historical fact. You selectively and with absolutely jeering dishonesty omitted:

1. ... that the visit having happened is but one man's opinion,
2. ... that the overwhelming preponderance of opinion (and the opinion of the AiG article) is that Darwin did not recant,
3. ... that the very same article notes a distinction between the claims of Lady Hope's story and Darwin actually recanting his theory.

You, Sir, are not only a liar but a painfully obvious liar. A particularly bad dancer of the Dummy Dance of Creationism. F- and dismissed.

[highball]

The quote was taken from a long article and I quoted the pertinent part, not the entire article. But there are no modifications to the quote - it's verbatim as I found it. Did you expect me to quote the entire article? If I quote a paragraph or part therof from a book, by your logic it's an edited quote since I did not quote the entire book.

You took a quote out of context to twist its meaning.

The article was debunking Lady Hope's story. Your post made it appear that it was supporting the story.

I don't expect you to quote anything in its entirety. But I also don't expect you to think you can get away with changing the meaning by what you choose to leave out.

It's dishonest. And it is editing, for that reason.