1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
→Incorrect definition: On what basis do you say the latter usage is "incorrect"?
:: Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree, but common =/= actual. As [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup>
::: I agree, but common =/= actual. As [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup>
:::: No, it is not acceptable. On what basis do you say the latter usage is "incorrect"? Someone has proposed a new definition of "hominid" a few years ago. Maybe it will catch on, and maybe it won't. In the meantime, people need to know how to interpret the word "hominid" when they read it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)