They aren't when listening to. They are deceptive.

What do you mean?

They quote mine. They will even quote sources that explicitly teach against them in a way that makes it appear that the source supports them. You can't really trust anything they say, because they are very good at lying by omission and manipulating perception.

Years ago I was reading something from them (this was before youtube--or, at least, before they were posting on youtube) and they quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas to "prove" someone's heresy.  It was so long ago, I don't remember the subject or the subject of their wrath.  Since I have a copy of the Summa, I looked it up--at least they provided the citation.  I don't think they expected people to look up the citation to see the context and full explanation from St. Thomas.  It turned out that they were quoting the Objection, that is, part of the explanation that St. Thomas then answered to prove it wrong.  I stopped paying much attention to them after that.

Definitely not slander because they do it. 

Absolutely slander.  Ruby is about as biased a source as you can get, a dogmatic BoDer, buddies with our own Lover of Heresy.

I've never seen any intentional distortion on their part.  Period.  I've seen misinterpretation and reading things into a source that weren't necessarily there, but then I see more of that on the BoDers side.  Misinterpretation of something is not the same thing as your slanderous accusation of deception and lying. 

Years ago I was reading something from them (this was before youtube--or, at least, before they were posting on youtube) and they quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas to "prove" someone's heresy.  It was so long ago, I don't remember the subject or the subject of their wrath.  Since I have a copy of the Summa, I looked it up--at least they provided the citation.  I don't think they expected people to look up the citation to see the context and full explanation from St. Thomas.  It turned out that they were quoting the Objection, that is, part of the explanation that St. Thomas then answered to prove it wrong.  I stopped paying much attention to them after that.

There's a huge difference between a mistake and a lie or distortion or deliberate deception.  Simply because someone makes a mistake, I won't stop paying attention.  Father Cekada has made several egregious mistakes on various issues, and yet I'll still read what he writes, because he often makes good points also.  To ignore people simply because they make a mistake is childish and speaks to someone who has already made up his mind about an issue or else is engaging in childish vindictiveness.  Father Cekada has ridiculed me publicly, but I still praise the good work he's done.  You might be more likely to find the truth if you're actually open to it in the first place.  Archbishop Lefebvre has made mistakes.  Bishop Williamson has made mistakes, and yet I still listen to everything he writes.  We're all human, and I know of no Trad writer who's infallible and error-free.  But there's a huge chasm between being mistaken on something and deliberate lying, distortion, and deception.  Now, there can be a distortion that's caused by wanting to see something in a text that isn't there, but it's still not a conscious or deliberate thing for most people.  On the other hand, when someone uses ellipses where the excised portion completely undermines what they claim the passage proves (like Father Laisney about BoD or Bishop Kelly arguing the invalidity of the +Thuc line), that's a sign of dishonesty, distortion, and deception.

On the other hand, when someone uses ellipses where the excised portion completely undermines what they claim the passage proves (like Father Laisney about BoD or Bishop Kelly arguing the invalidity of the +Thuc line), that's a sign of dishonesty, distortion, and deception.

That's exactly what the Dimonds do. 

That's exactly what the Dimonds do.

No they don't.  You're just going to double down on your slander.  Shame on you.