DNAunion: There's another side to this coin.
I quote often and at length in an attempt to support my positions - to show others that what I am expressing is not just my own personal opinion. Yet because I do not fall squarely in with the "materialists" they often times - quite incorrectly - insist that I must have taken the quotes out of context (of course, they don't bother to check before falling prey to their kneejerk reflexes).
We should keep in mind that doing things like leaving material out (in which case ellipses must be used) and inserting material (in which case square brackets must be used) are quite legitimate practices when quoting others - they serve to streamline the quote (by omitting material irrelevant to the discussion) and to clarify the quote.
The key thing that disqualifies a quote from being legitimate is changing its meaning - if you take it out of context, or add/subtract words that alter the passage's meaning, you're guilty.
Here's something I was writing up in my personal notes a while back, sparked by the repeated - and quite false - accussations that I was misquoting others.
************************
DNAunion: Whenever the quoting of others is used extensively, the often-heard accusation of quoting out of context must be addressed. The problem does not arise when one selects from a passage just the statements that support his or her own position: the problem arises when one selects statements in such a manner that the final quote does not accurately reflect the meaning of the original passage. If the original meaning is retained, the quote is valid. There is nothing unethical about selectively quoting, or even inserting words into, or omitting words from, a quote, as long as the original meaning is left in tact.
For instance, consider the following:
Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life. (Stanley Miller as quoted by Sean Henahan,Access Excellence, From Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach: An Interview with Exobiology Pioneer Dr. Stanley L. Miller, October, 1996)
Atmospheric chemists, meanwhile, had found what they considered fatal flaws in the mixtures of gases that Miller and his successors had used in their reactions. In the real atmosphere, they
pointed out, methane and ammonia would have quickly disintegrated under the influence of ultraviolet light. Most came to favor a more stable mixture of gases with drastically different chemical properties.
most atmospheric scientists now favor an early atmosphere of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, similar to the atmosphere today but with two major differences: it was free of oxygen (a later by-product of life), and it included thousands or even tens of thousands times as much carbon dioxide
(necessary to offset the lower solar luminosity). The only thing wrong with the carbon dioxide-nitrogen atmosphere is that it is useless for engendering life. Chemically it is all but inert. Pump it into Stanley Miller's flasks and jolt it with electricity (an experiment that Miller and others have
tried), and you will get.., carbon dioxide and nitrogen nothing more exciting than that. (Jeffrey L. Bada, Cold Start. (Origins of Life on Earth), The Sciences, May-June 1995 v35 n3 p21(5))
DNAunion: First, Stanley Miller states that without the particular type of prebiotic atmosphere he modeled (a strongly-reduced atmosphere) the organic compounds required for lifes appearance will not arise. Jeffrey Bada then states that most contemporary atmospheric scientists favor an early atmosphere that differed from the type Miller modeled, and such a near-neutral atmosphere is all but inert Miller himself has tried to produce organic compounds under such conditions with rather dismal results.
One might conclude from these two quotes that the appearance of life by chemical evolution alone is impossible, and indeed, if these two quotes are combined for use as premises to formulate a logical argument, this conclusion follows naturally.
MILLER: If Earths early atmosphere was not strongly reduced, then the organic compounds required for life would not have formed
BADA: The Earths early atmosphere was not strongly reduced
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the organic compounds required for life did not form
SELF-EVIDENT: If the organic compounds required for life did not form, then life could not have arisen by chemical evolution alone
1st CONCLUSION: The organic compounds required for life did not form
2nd CONCLUSION: Therefore, life did not arise by chemical evolution alone
Obviously, both Miller and Bada reject the conclusions drawn above and believe that naturalistic chemical evolution is sufficient to produce life. How then can the quotes be accurate if they are so diametrically opposed to the overall positions of the researchers? Surely I must have misquoted the researchers, right?
Wrong. Nowhere do the quotes claim that Miller or Bada now reject chemical evolution. Yes, the conclusions drawn above are inconsistent with their overall positions, but each of the quotes from which the first conclusion was drawn is consistent with the researchers views on the topics they discussed. The quotes are accurate representations of Millers and Badas views on the early atmosphere and its consequences. I have neither introduced words into, nor omitted words from, the quotes that alter their individual meaning. The statements convey the exact message Miller and Bada intended, and the original meaning has been faithfully retained. Therefore, the quoting is not done out of context.
The fact that the quoted individuals do not draw the same conclusion as is reached by the combining of their individual statements is immaterial as far as the charge of quoting out of context is concerned. Bada apparently believes that the organic compounds required for lifes emergence arose by some as-of-yet-unknown process that did not require a strongly-reduced atmosphere, and that Millers generalization is flawed. Conversely, Miller apparently believes the early atmosphere was strongly reduced and that the majority of atmospheric chemists are wrong. All of this is allowed by the quotes.
to be taken from a completely different paragraph (which, BTW came BEFORE the paragraph that the first part was taken from), and reads as follows: 
