Talk:Dan Quayle - Revision history

Maestro: /* Mercilessly Attacked */

2007-10-13T01:10:07Z

‎Mercilessly Attacked

Learn together: /* Mercilessly Attacked */

2007-09-02T07:12:19Z

‎Mercilessly Attacked

Ursus: /* Mercilessly Attacked */

2007-08-30T20:17:19Z

‎Mercilessly Attacked

Ursus: /* Mercilessly Attacked */

2007-08-30T20:16:20Z

‎Mercilessly Attacked

Learn together: /* Mercilessly Attacked */

2007-08-30T19:09:07Z

‎Mercilessly Attacked

Ursus at 18:55, August 30, 2007

2007-08-30T18:55:23Z

Learn together: Mercilessly Attacked

2007-08-30T18:52:44Z

Mercilessly Attacked

2007-07-12T18:59:54Z

Reverted edits by Ericfuchs123 (Talk); changed back to last version by Oldoligarch

Ericfuchs123 at 18:44, July 12, 2007

2007-07-12T18:44:33Z

Oldoligarch at 16:55, April 25, 2007

2007-04-25T16:55:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, October 13, 2007
Line 34:		Line 34:

	::::Forcing through is wrong no matter what rationale you try to give it, and will ultimately result in your being blocked if that is a pattern. There should not be a need to mention it again. Please realize that any attempts to rationalize may carry personal meaning to you, but has no value to this site. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 03:12, 2 September 2007 (EDT)		::::Forcing through is wrong no matter what rationale you try to give it, and will ultimately result in your being blocked if that is a pattern. There should not be a need to mention it again. Please realize that any attempts to rationalize may carry personal meaning to you, but has no value to this site. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 03:12, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Al Gore==
		+
		+	I remember Gore getting really ripped about the 'I Invented the Internet' quote...let's face it, gaffe for gaffe, Quayle wins. He wasn't dumb, just a poor public speaker and the press loves to jump on that, especiallly comedy shows. Remember Admiral Stockdale (Perot's running mate)? War hero, statesman...but when he got trounced at the VP debates he came off as a senile fool. I don't think this article is the place to rip on Gore. [[User:Maestro\|Maestro]] 21:10, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, September 2, 2007
Line 30:		Line 30:

	:::At the same time, while I don't wish to get into a flame war, the comment about forcing through changes is inappropriate given the context of the changes. Your explanations for calling the attacks merciless give/gave no justification for its inclusion. Had you provided a citation for it, this give-and-take would be unnecessary. Ultimately, the article works better without the word. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 16:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)		:::At the same time, while I don't wish to get into a flame war, the comment about forcing through changes is inappropriate given the context of the changes. Your explanations for calling the attacks merciless give/gave no justification for its inclusion. Had you provided a citation for it, this give-and-take would be unnecessary. Ultimately, the article works better without the word. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 16:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::We agree mercilessly was better than no choice at all. I accept repeatedly because I can see where you're coming from, but I also believe that mercilessly was appropriate in this situation. How many times was Quayle asked the same question in the Vice Presidential debate? Has that ever happened with anyone else in the history of the debates? How about the widely reported allegations made by a bimbo that took up with married men that Quayle made a pass at her and she turned him down?
		+
		+	::::Forcing through is wrong no matter what rationale you try to give it, and will ultimately result in your being blocked if that is a pattern. There should not be a need to mention it again. Please realize that any attempts to rationalize may carry personal meaning to you, but has no value to this site. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 03:12, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, August 30, 2007
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:::You were right about repeatedly. Better choice than mercilessly, but also better than no adjective at all. We can agree on this.		:::You were right about repeatedly. Better choice than mercilessly, but also better than no adjective at all. We can agree on this.

−	:::At the same time, while I don't wish to get into a flame war, the comment about forcing through changes is inappropriate given the context of the changes. Your explanations for calling the attacks merciless give/gave no justification for its inclusion. Had you provided a citation for it, this give-and-take would be ~~unnecessarily~~. Ultimately, the article works better without the word. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 16:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)	+	:::At the same time, while I don't wish to get into a flame war, the comment about forcing through changes is inappropriate given the context of the changes. Your explanations for calling the attacks merciless give/gave no justification for its inclusion. Had you provided a citation for it, this give-and-take would be unnecessary. Ultimately, the article works better without the word. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 16:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, August 30, 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:

	::On another note, we don't force through changes here. If you, as a new person, see an established article and make a change and that change it rejected, then take it to talk and discuss first. We aren't the other wiki. Trying to force changes to match your perception of what they should be will lead to blocking. I hope that is clear. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 15:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)		::On another note, we don't force through changes here. If you, as a new person, see an established article and make a change and that change it rejected, then take it to talk and discuss first. We aren't the other wiki. Trying to force changes to match your perception of what they should be will lead to blocking. I hope that is clear. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 15:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::You were right about repeatedly. Better choice than mercilessly, but also better than no adjective at all. We can agree on this.
		+
		+	:::At the same time, while I don't wish to get into a flame war, the comment about forcing through changes is inappropriate given the context of the changes. Your explanations for calling the attacks merciless give/gave no justification for its inclusion. Had you provided a citation for it, this give-and-take would be unnecessarily. Ultimately, the article works better without the word. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 16:16, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, August 30, 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:So let those people judge "merciless." Leave it out of the article. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 14:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)		:So let those people judge "merciless." Leave it out of the article. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 14:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	::If you had changed it to repeatedly at first, I would have left it as is. But removing any indication that attacks on Quayle were any different from the usual run of the mill was very disingenuous versus reality.
		+
		+	::On another note, we don't force through changes here. If you, as a new person, see an established article and make a change and that change it rejected, then take it to talk and discuss first. We aren't the other wiki. Trying to force changes to match your perception of what they should be will lead to blocking. I hope that is clear. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 15:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, August 30, 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	To anyone following at the time that was common knowledge; the only question was if people were for or against the incredible scrutiny. The idea that a couple of article citations could do justice completely misses the scope of what occurred. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 14:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)		To anyone following at the time that was common knowledge; the only question was if people were for or against the incredible scrutiny. The idea that a couple of article citations could do justice completely misses the scope of what occurred. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 14:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:So let those people judge "merciless." Leave it out of the article. --[[User:Ursus\|Ursus]] 14:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, August 30, 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?		Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?
		+
		+	== Mercilessly Attacked ==
		+
		+	To anyone following at the time that was common knowledge; the only question was if people were for or against the incredible scrutiny. The idea that a couple of article citations could do justice completely misses the scope of what occurred. [[User:Learn together\|Learn together]] 14:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, July 12, 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?		Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?
−
−	Man this dude was an idiot. Mispelling potato is one thing but thinking that Latin Americans spoke latin? And ingadging in a fued with a fictional character. This isn't liberal bias this is just plain old stupidity. Thank god Bush Sr. never died in office or this retard would have ran this country right into a nuclear war. ([[User:Ericfuchs123\|Ericfuchs123]] 14:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT))

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, July 12, 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?		Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?
		+
		+	Man this dude was an idiot. Mispelling potato is one thing but thinking that Latin Americans spoke latin? And ingadging in a fued with a fictional character. This isn't liberal bias this is just plain old stupidity. Thank god Bush Sr. never died in office or this retard would have ran this country right into a nuclear war. ([[User:Ericfuchs123\|Ericfuchs123]] 14:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT))

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, April 25, 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I remember the potato thing. We was at a school, helping kids with their spelling. His list had a missprint and he convinced a kid to spell potato 'potatoe'. [[User:Czolgolz\|Czolgolz]] 08:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		I remember the potato thing. We was at a school, helping kids with their spelling. His list had a missprint and he convinced a kid to spell potato 'potatoe'. [[User:Czolgolz\|Czolgolz]] 08:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Quayle never thought it was important to get things right. Apparently, many other "conservatives" also feel that knowing something is snobbish. Latin hasn't been spoken, except in the Vatican, for hundreds of years. Does it make someone an elitist to know this?