553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 189:
Line 189: + + + + +
→Re: “not one author”
Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:One man's earmark is another mans pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:One man's earmark is another mans pork. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::I see three problems with this--
:::This is a total non sequitur and it fails to respond to my point. It even manages to be about a totally different edit.
:::The article says earmark—not pork—find an article that says pork and I won’t touch it, but since the author being used as an authority here chose to call it an earmark that’s what the article here should say.
:::Pork is spending for the sake of spending alone—like a bridge to no where—the article suggests that this spending is something that actually provide some real benefit, suggesting it is not actually pork (but see point two above, find a source that calls it pork, properly attribute it and I won’t complain)
::--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)