Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining "out of context
> > quotes" as your criticism of the various posts to a thread....
> ...
> > 1) Post the additional context to illustrate why readers' citations
> > are out of context.
>
> Rjack, you repeatedly post on the same topics with slightly changed
> subject headings. This scatters your postings and followups in many
> different places, when in fact the topic has not changed. This may
> explain why you ask the above question, which I already answered.
>
> If you look under other subject headings, not just this one, I'm sure
> you will find where I pointed out that you took a sentence that began
> "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is
> that of jurisdiction..." and quoted it without the "On every writ of
> error or appeal" part, thus making it much more general than it was
> intended to be.
>
> You also omitted to mention that this fragment addressed something very
> specific, i.e., the “doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction.�
>
> Yes, of course readers can look up the original. This is how
> out-of-context deception works -- you deceive the reader, and defend
> that deception by claiming that if readers can look up the original,
> then there's nothing wrong with the out-of-context quote.

Rahul, here is the original quote I posted on 9/12/08:

"[T]he first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction,
first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record
comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for
itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to
the relation of the parties to it. The requirement that jurisdiction
be established as a threshold matter spring[s] from the nature and
limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible
and without exception." (citations and quotations omitted)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998)

For God's sake trot down to your local law library and pull down a copy
of "The Red Book" which is a manual on legal style by Bryan A. Garner.
The square brackets are a "signal" used in legal citations to *indicate*
that the original quote has in some manner been altered. In the case
at hand the square brackets surrounding "[T]he first. . ." is a signal 
that the proceeding introductory phrase has been skipped.

The square brackets clearly signaled to you, Rahul the reader, that the
material had been altered in some way -- that's their function. The
square brackets fairly screamed at you that the original context had 
been in some manner edited. Of course had you ever actually written a 
legal brief you would know this.

Your script-kiddie remarks are displaying your ignorance prominently on 
your sleeve.
        
PLEASE STOP WHINING ABOUT THAT WHICH IS STANDARD PRACTICE IN LEGAL 
CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)