5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.+ − Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a+ − disruptive poster. − There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot+ − be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next. − − one is the forest versus tree analogy. − − two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics. − − Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define − trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally? − − I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory − logic course. − − == no comment reversion == − − Tsumetai might also want to consider why I was making the point; − an embarrassingly sloppy three sentences are reinstated. Granted the point − was made rather bluntly. I had not known much of who was who when I saw the piece; − since then, I was pleased to see Tsumetai taking point on getting the thermodynamics − silliness out of the evolution discussion. − − If conservatives can't come up with a definition of macroeconomics that reflects − − muddleheadedness about physics... Well, I'll just say I was thinking there'd be − more on econ and less on unicorns. − − :I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
no edit summary
I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together? You're far brighter than that.
In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.
the level of work on wikipedia, and instead invest that much energy in arguing