Citing someone by recounting, illustrating, or referring to someone doesn't include a false quote with an false premise thrown in directly afterwards . It's embarrassing you don't see that.
It's pathetic that you do see that. He didn't cite you, there's no false quote, there's not even a quote. Again, just because something is enclosed in quotation marks doesn't mean it's an actual quote. Just because he used the word cite doesn't mean he was referring verbatim to something.
There are other definitions of the word, except if someone is citing someone and then immediately follows it with a quote, they are quoting the person.
That's not only incorrect, but ridiculous. You don't get to invent new grammar rules to cover up for not understanding the rules and definitions as they already exist.
Yeah , of course you knew it wasn't a direct quote. I'm going to have to call bs on that one .
That's because after two explanations of the grammar usage, you STILL don't understand it.
Setting up his erroneous quote about me using the word 'seem' earlier in the sentence doesn't negate the inaccurate statement attributed to me. If someone wants to state their opinion about what someone's view seems to be, it can be done without attributing a false quote towards someone.
For some reason, you continue think that if something is enclosed in quote marks, that makes it therefore a direct quote. That's incorrect. And no matter how long you want to pound sand, it will always remain incorrect.
