nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 204:
Line 204: + + + Line 217:
Line 220: +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": Interesting logic
:::::: I see, you're not an Anglophile, you just like Australian spelling! You're funny. Well, you live in a country that puts the British queen on its money, and you go out of your way to credit the British monarchy. You're welcome to your opinions, but I really think that they don't belong on the Isaac Newton page.
:::::: I see, you're not an Anglophile, you just like Australian spelling! You're funny. Well, you live in a country that puts the British queen on its money, and you go out of your way to credit the British monarchy. You're welcome to your opinions, but I really think that they don't belong on the Isaac Newton page.
:::::: The "sir" title is not just meaningless to me and most Americans; it is apparent that you don't know what it means either, as evidenced by your bogus distinction between real knighthoods and honorary knighthoods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The "sir" title is not just meaningless to me and most Americans; it is apparent that you don't know what it means either, as evidenced by your bogus distinction between real knighthoods and honorary knighthoods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: How do you go from me ''using'' Australian spellings (because I am Australian) to ''liking'' Australian spellings? And how does that make me "funny"? Your ignorance of non-American matters continues to show. Australia does ''not'' put the British queen on its money. It puts the ''Australian'' queen on its money. Yes, it is the same individual, but she is on the money because she is the Australian queen, not because she is the British queen.
::::::: Just because I'm not an expert on all the fine details of knighthoods does not mean that I don't know what a knighthood means. And I don't agree that my distinction was bogus. I think that Hsmom's description was not entirely accurate. As I understand it, it's not true that ''Americans'' cannot use the title simply because they are Americans. What I believe to be the case is that people who are not citizens of a country that adopts the British honours system (which Australia no longer does, but used to) can only be given honorary knighthoods, and honorary knighthoods are not entitled to use the title "sir". So the ''effect'' of Hsmom's comments were basically correct, even though technically she didn't have it exactly correct, I believe.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, I fear my above contribution may have derailed your discussion somewhat. I shall attempt to rectify matters below:
Mr. Rayment, I fear my above contribution may have derailed your discussion somewhat. I shall attempt to rectify matters below:
If Fox News sees fit to accord these figures (both historical and contemporary) their full title, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be so churlish as to deny Newton his. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
If Fox News sees fit to accord these figures (both historical and contemporary) their full title, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be so churlish as to deny Newton his. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for that. I wasn't being critical of your earlier list, so much as RSchlafly's (invalid) use of it to make his point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==