Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, oversight, Administrators
2,260
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: +
Talk:Liberal wordiness (view source)
Revision as of 17:51, November 17, 2009
, 17:51, November 17, 2009no edit summary
:::It exists in Liberal style as a bullet point, #2: "a high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance," which could use better development. If User:Epic416 has created the article as a mockery, he's done a pretty poor job, as it simply restates what User:Aschlafly has been saying for some time: liberals talk a lot without saying anything. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::It exists in Liberal style as a bullet point, #2: "a high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance," which could use better development. If User:Epic416 has created the article as a mockery, he's done a pretty poor job, as it simply restates what User:Aschlafly has been saying for some time: liberals talk a lot without saying anything. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::::It's not merely personal opinion, but the collective opinion of Americans, who considered Bush far more accessible and understandable than Kerry, who was thought needlessly academic. As for objective analysis, I wonder how it could be done. [[Linguistic_Analysis_of_Candidates]] analyzed republicans from one metric (conservatism), so objective analysis of content should be doable, if more complex. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 17 November 2009 (EST)