I prefer to refer to quotes as observations.
It often seems like when a quote is used, someone is attempting to make an assertion — to validate something that they believe is true by referencing someone else who also knows about that truth.
Many times untrue things are asserted to be true. Other times, truths are taken quite out of context (or, at least, quotes are). Lots of reasons for this, some are even unintentional. I prefer to work with whatever somebody else says as mostly just an observation about something that has an element of truth to it. In other words, it could very well be true, but it could very well not be true. Just because something is stated — even stated as true — doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. Certainly our times have exposed that.
For me, the term ‘observations’ allows for the opportunity to consider what might be true about something that is being asserted.
One of the benefits of a quote (or, in my case, an observation), is that it appears to be something that I am referencing...that someone else has also observed. I like that — it pokes at something, while still allowing for latitude in what understanding truth is all about. It's more fluid. It breathes, allowing for something like imagination (as opposed to leveraging, co-opting, or coercing) to discover something meaningful, timeless, transcendent — whether that be at the center of an idea or on the edge of it
Probably, in the end, I just prefer the concept of observations. I guess you can quote me on that, if you want to.
