Why don't you include the quote with your OP?

If that guys ink is real, holy crap, brain damage, regardless of the humor

 

Like interpreting that Trump called KKK members “fine people” when he specifically stated in the same paragraph he wasn’t referring to those guys and condemned them. But hey, who needs interpretation when you have CNN telling you what Trump said by 1/2 quoting him and NEVER providing context EVER.

 

I anticipate that the Biden presidency will be a democratic version of the Gerald Ford presidency. Kinda boring, with frequent gaffes. But no upheavals.

Unless China invades Taiwan. In which case, God knows what will happen.

 

There are a lot of lazy posters, here. True.

 

What you're not understanding is that a paraphrase is not something that is up for interpretation. You can interpret Trumps speech anyway you want. But if you're going to say that he said something then you either paraphrase accurately, or quote him directly. At least you will if you have any integrity and honesty. To do anything else is dishonest at best.

 

Paraphrasing is interpreting the data and picking out what you like. That's what it means to interpret something. You take information in, and you process it. Paraphrasing is just putting it down into words.

 

Yeah I remember that quote. The problem is that it's not clear who he's referring to. So you can interpret it as either way and still be right depending on which side you decide he was talking about.

 

Correctly? Perhaps. Accurately? Not at all. Thankfully, the full context of what I've said is available in this thread

 

The bold part goes together. The red part however does not go with the bolded.

Purdue University ~ Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words

Notice step 4. You'll see a familiar word that has already been talked about in this thread "accurately". Also note that no where does it say "interpret" or "interpretation". It even mentions "essential information". In the example we have been using that would include the fact that he expressly said that he wasn't talking about white supremacists and that they should be totally condemned. Something Trump haters and the media often ignored in order to peddle their lies about Trump being a racist. Just like they ignored the many times that Trump had condemned white supremacists over the years, even before he became President or even ran for President. Even to the point of saying that he never condemned them and refused to do so.

Now you'll no doubt try and use the 1st step to bolster your argument. Don't bother. It specifically states to reread the "passage until you understand ITS full meaning". In other words what it actually says, and not your interpretation of what it says. It even tells you to keep reading it until you get, and understand, its meaning. Not your meaning. Not your understanding. ITS meaning.

The steps also include recording the original source. In other words citing the original source "(including the page)". Which is what the OP is about.

 

If that were true they would have stopped. Anti Trump hatred will continue into the future unabated.

 

Did you seriously try to pull a definition on me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I needed that laugh thank you. What you are describing is a method for interpretation. Why would I only use step 1, when everything you said is how to do an interpretation of data? This is basically what I learned in my qualitative class when we did interpretivism.

 

If you thought that was the definition that I provided then I can see why you are so confused as to the difference between interpretation and paraphrasing. I also understand now why you are so easily misled by the media.

 

I laugh at you because you didn’t respond to my argument. I’m saying that paraphrasing is to interpretation as squares are to quadrilaterals. All squares are quadrilaterals but not all quadrilaterals are squares.all you did was reaffirm my point. It’s a kind of way of interpreting data. It’s just a method for interpretation.

 

I think “Orange Man Bad” will be getting the blame for everything that goes wrong for the next three Democratic administrations.