Talk:Fox Derangement Syndrome

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is some kind of joke, right? EnFrancaisSVP 12:37, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Nope, it's a legit term in the political word. In the words of Rosie O'Donnell, "google it." -- AmeriCan 12:52, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

well, I'll be.... Snippy comment cheerfully withdrawn. How about some more cites, then? EnFrancaisSVP 12:54, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense. There are only 32 Google web hits on the exact phrase "Fox Derangement Syndrome," an utterly insignificant number for a Web search. More to the point, there are no hits on Google Books, which I find to be more stable, reliable, less affected by search engine optimization, etc.

I'll grant you that AmeriCan did not originate it, but it's not a "real" phrase... not yet. Dpbsmith 14:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Dpbsmith, you using the same logic that Wikipedia's users use to push their bias.
Yes, it's what's called "logic." It's neither liberal nor conservative. It's sometimes used dishonestly by people to push bias, and it's sometimes used by people to determine as fairly as possible what material is or is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 15:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

"Fox Derangement Syndrome" IS a "real" Bernard Goldberg even wrote about the subject in an entire chapter of his latest book. Heck, "Fox Derangement Syndrome" is the title of the chapter! -- AmeriCan 14:02, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, and many people write many books with many chapter titles, but that doesn't make them real phrases that have made it into the language. Are you sure Goldberg didn't coin the phrase himself? Please give some evidence that it is a real phrase other than "proof by repeated assertion."
I think you just like Goldberg's phrase and are trying to promote it. As of today it gets 33 Google hits on the web. That's utterly negligible. When it gets to a couple of thousand, which at this rate will take several years, it may deserve an article. Dpbsmith 15:07, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Dpbsmith, I'm tempted to call you an idiot. Goldberg didn't coin the term. It was used on Michelle Malkin's site well over a year before his book was published. You know, just because you've never heard of "Fox Derangement Syndrome" doesn't mean it's not a legit term. You apparently have the ego of a liberal. Take your biased agenda to Wikipedia, where you will be more at home. This is Conservapedia! -- AmeriCan
You're right about Michelle Malkin using it before Goldberg, my apologies. (Does Goldberg's book credit her as the originator? That would be good to have in any discussion of the term).
Malkin also has used Rove Derangement Syndrome, Condi Derangement Syndrome, Laura Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq Derangement Syndrome, Rush Derangement Syndrome, Diebold Derangement Syndrome, and Cheney Derangement Syndrome. Are these legit? Should we have articles on them? What would you suggest as a criterion for deciding which of these are important terms that deserve Conservapedia articles? Dpbsmith 22:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Wasn't this article merged before with Goldberg? It should be merged again, in my opinion. Bohdan 22:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Remove of "been shown by" statement

I've been asked to justify the removal of the sentence:

Fox Derangement Syndrome has been said to have been shown by Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Chris Matthews, Angelina Jolie, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Robert Greenwald.

The sentence has sat around for months totally unsourced. I took a look around the Internet for "Fox Derangement Syndrome" "Keith Olbermann" and got nothing. I don't have the time to look around for all of the people, but it's clear that the statement totally shreds Commandments 1 and 2. If there are no protests within the next few hours then I will remove the sentence. - PostoStudanto 19:57, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

I count 9 edits out of about 50 that are substantive. The sentence you mention may need to be re-written, but you seem to be here just to argue and complain. You might make more friends by adding content instead of bashing obvious truth. Mathers 20:02, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait a sec. He's doing exactly what he's supposed to do, isn't he? He brought it up on the talk page for discussion, after which he plans to improve the article, which is a substantive edit.
As always, I allow for the possibility of being way off base, but your comment next to your revert even says "ought to discuss first." One man's opinion and all that, but I say cut the cat some slack. Aziraphale 23:03, 28 September 2007 (EDT) <-meow...