I agree with what you are saying DNA. The tricky part is when someone tries to mess with a quote from someone else to make it appear to say something that the "quotee" disagrees with (that is quote mining).
You do have to have your last point though:
Second, it shows the exact wording that the person's argument is based on, allowing the other side to scrutinize the support and point out potential problems that arose when going from scientist->argument.
The closer one gets to the original research the better. But only up to a point. Obviously if we always went that far a lot of us would be unable to understand the supplied material anyway.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-27-2003]