The compassionate way of handling semantically messed-up direct quotes

[maxsims]

No way, Jose!

In my travels within English-speaking countries, I found that the term "moving the goalposts" is widespread and therefore common.   So is "shifting the goalposts", which is used just as commonly as a synonym for "moving the goalpost", therefore making the terms interchangeable.    To pretend that "moving" and shifting" are different in this context is ludicrous. 

You  insist that “the component words of an idiom are not substitutable and the idiom itself is not modifiable. When either or both of these things are done to the idiom, in fact, the idiom collapses or its meaning is seriously impaired…”    I concur, but if you really believed this, you would not use terms such as "in the same wavelength" and "watching out against".

(I noticed in the "watching out against" discussion that you twice found yourself in the Merriam-Webster minority, but that this didn't seem to bother you.   In the past, you have often used M-W to underpin your arguments.   How is it that the opposite seems not to follow?    Is this not moving/shifting the goalposts?)

I have never heard of "moving the goalpost" being equated with "raising the bar" (not that's it's relevant to this discussion).   "Raising the bar" (taken from the sport of high jumping) is the metaphorical equivalent of "raising the standard". e.g raising the pass mark in English from 50 per cent to 60 per cent.

Now, you said I had mixed "at least" two fine metaphors, suggesting that my statement contained more than two.   It didn't, but what was the second one?

No, Joe Carillo, both gramatically and arithmetically, I win by TKO!

[Joe Carillo]

Gotcha, maxsims! I thought you wouldn't be courageous enough to ask. What's the third idiom in that statement of yours, “In my neck of the woods, that sort of argument is called shifting the goalposts!”?

I'ts "sort of."

This is according to the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, which has this entry as quoted by the TheFreeDictionary.com:

sort of

to some degree kind of It seemed to be sort of a cross between an oyster and a mushroom.
Usage notes: sometimes used to show that you are not certain about something: I'm sort of at an age where I just want things to be a little more orderly.

And then you say:

"I have never heard of 'moving the goalpost' being equated with 'raising the bar' (not that's it's relevant to this discussion). 'Raising the bar' (taken from the sport of high jumping) is the metaphorical equivalent of 'raising the standard'. e.g raising the pass mark in English from 50 per cent to 60 per cent."

Not that I think Wikipedia's the absolute authority on this, but check out its entry on "moving the goalpost" that actually contradicts this statement of yours. If you disagree, I suggest you tell them off and demand that the entry be stricken out.

You still insist that you won by TKO both grammatically and arithmetically? 

[maxsims]

Struth, Joe Carillo!    Talk about clutching at straws!

Are you trying to tell us that you consider my use of "sort of" as a stand-alone metaphor?   Do you not think that 99.99 per cent of readers would take the word "sort" as a synonym for "type", which destroys your argument completely?

(I checked the Wikipedia entry for "moving the goalpost" and found it to be as you say.  This was the first and only time I've seen it equated with "raising the bar" - apart from your earlier reference - and this is also true for my immediate friends.   None of us have ever before heard it spoken or seen it written - anywhere!)

I think I should remove the "T" from "TKO"...!

[Joe Carillo]

My understanding is that when you use the stand-alone "sort" to mean "type," it's in constructions like this: "I don't go for jokes of that sort." In cases like this, "sort" is being used literally. When you use "sort of," however, you are using it metaphorically as the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms says. That's precisely what you did in your sentence in question, “In my neck of the woods, that sort of argument is called shifting the goalposts!” Right?

As for your acknowledgment of Wikipedia's entry for "moving the goalpost," let me respond using Filipino boxing champion Manny Pacquiao's peremptory remark for new-found knowledge of that sort: "Now you know!" 

[maxsims]

Struth, Joe Carillo, are you so desperate to be right?

Let's use the Joe Carillo sort of argument and rewrite your sentence.   It now appears as: "I don't go for that sort of joke."    Or, if you like, "those sorts of jokes."

Does this make "sort of" a metaphor?    You would be the only person to believe so!

[Joe Carillo]

I actually want you be right, believe me, maxsims. But the more closely I look into this thing, the more I am convinced that you couldn't be. Just now I have just checked with my digital Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary precisely what "sort of" means, and this is what I found:

Main Entry: sort of
Function:adverb
Date:1790

 : to a moderate degree  : SOMEWHAT

So you see, the meaning of "sort of" is world's apart from the meaning of the stand-alone "sort" in the sense synonymous with "type," which you are insisting on:

Main Entry: sort
Function: noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, fate, lot, characteristic, from Latin sort-, sors lot, share, category — more at  SERIES
Date:14th century

1 a : a group set up on the basis of any characteristic in common  : CLASS, KIND  b : one approximating the character or qualities of another  <a sort of latter-day Abe Lincoln>  c : PERSON, INDIVIDUAL  <he's not a bad sort>

So don't blame for this state of affairs. It's not a matter of my belief about the meaning of "sort" and "sort of." It's what they objectively are in English usage.

[maxsims]

Your sort/manner/type/kind/line/form of argument is ridiculous.

[Joe Carillo]

You said: “Your sort/manner/type/kind/line/form of argument is ridiculous.”

Fine then. We’ll keep that on the record. But let me just ask you the sort of question you often ask in the Forum when your back is forced against the wall: “Why didn’t you just use ‘manner,’ ‘type,’ or ‘kind’?” They are precise, literal words that couldn’t conceivably be idiomatic or metaphorical by any measure. In contrast, the phrases “your sort of argument” and “your line of argument” are obviously idiomatic and metaphorical. I didn’t say they are grammatically or semantically wrong, mind you; all I said was that “you mixed at least two fine metaphors” in this statement of yours, “In my neck of the woods, that sort of argument is called shifting the goalposts!”

Now it’s as clear as day that aside from “my neck of the woods” and “shifting the goalposts,” the phrase “that sort of argument” is also idiomatic. That’s three idioms or metaphors in a row, which validates my statement that “you mixed at least two fine metaphors.” Still, you really weren’t indicted for any crime against the English language. You just didn’t use plain talk, that’s all. So why bristle at that suggestion? QED

I now rest my case. Will you now also rest yours?

[maxsims]

Nope.   In my neck of the woods, "sort of" is a metaphor' "sort" (as just used by you) is not.