nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 176:
Line 176: + + + + + + + + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": I was not dishonest, nor even incorrect. Honorary knighthoods are irrelevant to this issue.
::: With the Pope, it is not just a title. It is also his job description, and what makes him a notable person. In the case of Newton, it is just an honorary title that is meaningless to most people. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::: With the Pope, it is not just a title. It is also his job description, and what makes him a notable person. In the case of Newton, it is just an honorary title that is meaningless to most people. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
RSchlafly, I don't appreciate people calling me "dishonest" when there is another possible, explanation, that being that I am simply ''incorrect'', in this case, about the meaning of the word "consensus". However, I'm not even incorrect. "Consensus" does not mean, or at the very least does not have to mean, "unanimous agreement", it means "general agreement" or "majority of opinion". So my edit comment was not only not dishonest, it was correct.
That a knighthood was not meaningless to me was not the only refutation of your claim. Hsmom also answered your claim. And the other four points I listed were also answered, including showing that four out of five other encyclopedias refer to Newton as "Sir". And remember that it was you who raised "other encyclopedias" as a comparison. In return, you've left a number of my questions unanswered (such as why you want it omitted).
What relevance does a list of Americans with ''honorary'' knighthoods have to a debate about a non-American with a "real" knighthood? People with ''honorary'' knighthoods are ''not entitled to use the title "sir"''.
Ed, I don't consider a person's title part of their name, yet I've ''often'' seen others refer to them that way, saying things like "his name is Rev. Smith" and the like. So often, in fact, that I've sometimes wondered if I am right to make the distinction.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==