nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + + + + + + + + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": These arguments
::::::: What argument was shown to be wrong? Show me one person outside of England who even knows what the title means. I looked up the Jefferson letter. It seems to be part of some sort of sarcastic put-down of negro literature. It doesn't make a good argument in this case. Why do you want to put the title in? It is redundant, at best. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: What argument was shown to be wrong? Show me one person outside of England who even knows what the title means. I looked up the Jefferson letter. It seems to be part of some sort of sarcastic put-down of negro literature. It doesn't make a good argument in this case. Why do you want to put the title in? It is redundant, at best. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::What arguments were shown to be wrong? These:
::::::::* ''The title is meaningless to anyone outside England''
::::::::* ''I think that "Sir" is a lot less meaningful and relevant than "Dr" or "Rev".'' (Not actually an argument, but a personal opinion.)
::::::::* ''CP and other encyclopedias do not even usually use "Dr" and "Rev".'' (Not directly shown to be wrong, but the implication that other encyclopedias do not show the "sir" title was shown to be wrong.)
::::::::* ''To put "Sir" on his name would be like putting "Herr Doctor Professor" on the names of German scientists.''
::::::::I've already answered the one about people outside England. And why to people ''inside'' England not count?
::::::::Why do I want to put it in? Because it is the proper thing to do; it is like part of his name. And how is it redundant if it hasn't been used already? Perhaps a later use of it might be made redundant by this, but this use is not. Why do you want it ''out'', other than a personal opinion about its relevance?
::::::::Now what arguments of yours have I missed, other than arguments from personal opinion?
::::::::And why do you revert before making an attempt at getting agreement, given that we've had three editors here in the last few days (and others earlier) arguing for including the title, and only you arguing against it. Why can't the majority view be applied?
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==