Changes

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible.  The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology.  Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level.  There is no sampling method.  People just think of words and add them.  They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word.  There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries?  online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction.  There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another.  No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective.  Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral.  Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further.  To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology.  I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well.  Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda.  Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor.  At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this.  In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law."  I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied.  Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute.  Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible.  The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology.  Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level.  There is no sampling method.  People just think of words and add them.  They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word.  There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries?  online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction.  There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another.  No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective.  Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral.  Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further.  To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology.  I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well.  Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda.  Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor.  At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this.  In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law."  I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied.  Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute.  Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==