nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 84:
Line 84: +
→Improvements: Thanks and on neutrality
:::I just clarified that aside from negligence/intent, the other distinction is mistatement of material elements of the quote (I am using negligent in the legal sense of "culpably negligent"). And I think the examples in the bottom part make it clear, and give it content to ensure that people see the difference.
:::I just clarified that aside from negligence/intent, the other distinction is mistatement of material elements of the quote (I am using negligent in the legal sense of "culpably negligent"). And I think the examples in the bottom part make it clear, and give it content to ensure that people see the difference.
:::And, I changed your wording because it wasn't neutral ~ it presumed that the creationists were right without citation, so I pulled the inference. Maybe it'd be better to just remove the reference to who's right or wrong completely?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]]
:::And, I changed your wording because it wasn't neutral ~ it presumed that the creationists were right without citation, so I pulled the inference. Maybe it'd be better to just remove the reference to who's right or wrong completely?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]]
:::: Thanks for the clarification on "negligent". Sometimes the facts favour one side over the other, so won't be "neutral". Your substituted sentence is not neutral either, as it effectively says that the quotes ''are'' fallacious. I think that I could agree with taking the footnote out completely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)