Talk:Talk.origins

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Is this a joke article or should it be edited to reflect the actual meaning of these words? Etaroced 15:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. Not a joke.
  2. You are welcome to improve it. --Ed Poor 15:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Jargon

I'm pretty sure most of those terms were used elsewhere first. Jrssr5 08:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Same here. I at least removed "moving the goalposts" and "spaghetti monster" from the list (twice, but expect Andy to revert it again because it's "liberal deletions of factually correct terms" according to the History), but since I'm not sure about the rest, I inserted fact-tags.
"Quote-mining" may have been introduced there (though it is now not really talk.origins-only jargon anymore), "goddidit" reminds me a lot of the classic "A wizard did it!", and "fundy loon" sounds very generic. --Sid 3050 08:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Jargon yet again

Andy, "moving the goalposts" and "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are NOT talk.origins jargon. The former has its roots outside the entire evolution/creation debate, and the latter has been covered in the news worldwide (with no reference to talk.origins that I know of), so it hardly qualifies as "jargon".

Sid, I've never heard those terms used outside "talk.origins", but there are used in talk.origins frequently. Besides, this jargon does not have to be original to talk.origins, but merely popular there.

I also object to your edit of PRATT - the purpose is to give a definition, not to twist and turn things into what some creationists want people to believe. --Sid 3050 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Your definition of that term is self-serving. Of course PRATT is used to avoid answering a question by claiming someone else answered somewhere. We're not here to give self-serving liberal explanations.
Don't censor those terms and don't insert self-serving liberal descriptions. Thank you.--Aschlafly 10:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't "censor" these terms. You may as well include "evolution" or "intelligent design" on the list. They're as much "talk.origin jargon" as "moving the goalposts" or "FSM". This is about jargon, not about "terms Andrew Schlafly wants to point out".
Your current "definition" is just "This is what creationists say about it". Don't you think this is extremely misleading? (No, don't answer - of course you don't.)
Anyway, I give up. You win. *takes article off his watch list* --Sid 3050 10:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Flying Spaghetti monster is NOT a term coined by Talk.origins - it has a well documented history that can be found here. --Cgday 10:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
It is jargon that is used on Talk.origins. That is the point. RSchlafly 11:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
By that logic, we can add any expression uttered by any author on talk-origins that has been used in popular speech since the user-group was invented. Surely the point of talk.origins is renowned for having its own jargon. - if it's renowed for it's OWN jargon, then that should be jargon that originated from that talkgroup. Otherwise the list will be an indiscriminate collection of information. --Cgday 11:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The above comments by Cgday and Sid are incredible. "Evolution" and "intelligent design" are not *jargon* so of course they do not belong on the list. The items listed are *jargon* and it doesn't matter where it originated. The items are used, and used frequently, on talk.origins. Maybe you don't like that fact, but it is a fact and the items should not be deleted from the jargon list so people can understand what talk.origins participants mean by these bizarre terms.--Aschlafly 11:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
"Moving the goalposts" is a common English phrase - how is it a 'bizarre term'? --Cgday 11:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This is not a FAQ for talk.origins so we don't need to include every term they use. Only Wikipedia would insist on that sort of clutter. I hate dealing with disambig pages there.

This is just jargon which is intrinsic (endemic? inherent?) to talk.origins so "moving the goalposts" doesn't need to be here. I took the trouble to create a red link for it, because it's interesting in itself. And since I'm about to go for lunch, I hope we can keep the Flying Spaghetti Monster article at Conservapedia. Love those noodly appendages! :-) --Ed Poor 11:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Why has the jargon been deleted? If the jargon is too trivial, then so is the whole newsgroup! 02:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

A large number of users support creationism

I would like to see the articles on talk.origins that are supportive of Creationism. That has not been my experience. Learn together 11:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Corrected idea that there is a tie-in to support of creationism Learn together 19:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools