100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 124:
Line 124: + +
→Not How the Term is Used
::: But again, that's how /you/ feel the term is used, which is not encyclopedic. Also your belief in the dictionary as the ultimate authority on language is flawed: language flows from the people into dictionaries, not the other way around. You also fail to take into consideration the obscurity of the term: except for here on the internet, I've yet to actually here the term used; this really is the only environment where quote mining is prevalent (due to the ease of use) to warrant calling it anything. We ought not use your definition, which isn't in any dictionary that I can find either...[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:52, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: But again, that's how /you/ feel the term is used, which is not encyclopedic. Also your belief in the dictionary as the ultimate authority on language is flawed: language flows from the people into dictionaries, not the other way around. You also fail to take into consideration the obscurity of the term: except for here on the internet, I've yet to actually here the term used; this really is the only environment where quote mining is prevalent (due to the ease of use) to warrant calling it anything. We ought not use your definition, which isn't in any dictionary that I can find either...[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:52, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: "It is commonly viewed as [[pejorative]] term, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him in an allegedly deceitful and misleading manner." this is far mroe objective and accurate if you insist upon its inclusion in the article. I must also voice my objection to your revision of this article; no consensus was at any point reached, in fact I disagreed with you /before/ you went ahead and revised the article, yet you went ahead anyway. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:57, 25 August 2008 (EDT)