Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + +
→Not How the Term is Used: reply
: Your definition isn't objective. Your definition is how people /view/ the terms use, not how it's actually defined. Indeed, it isn't recognized by dictionaries yet, but that's because the term is rather new (originating primarily through discourse on the internet in the mid- to late-90's). Also, as cited elsewhere on the page, the field of law doesn't advocate quote mining. As to politics, that is more an ancillary side-effect of an inherently corrupt and sinful environment than it is an advocated practice. Also um, law and science are two different fields, so why you even bothered to mention them puzzles me. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:24, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
: Your definition isn't objective. Your definition is how people /view/ the terms use, not how it's actually defined. Indeed, it isn't recognized by dictionaries yet, but that's because the term is rather new (originating primarily through discourse on the internet in the mid- to late-90's). Also, as cited elsewhere on the page, the field of law doesn't advocate quote mining. As to politics, that is more an ancillary side-effect of an inherently corrupt and sinful environment than it is an advocated practice. Also um, law and science are two different fields, so why you even bothered to mention them puzzles me. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:24, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The definition should address how the term is used, and if it were a legitimate term then it would be in dictionaries by now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)