Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fox Derangement Syndrome"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I'll grant you that [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] did not originate it, but it's not a "real" phrase... not yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT) | I'll grant you that [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] did not originate it, but it's not a "real" phrase... not yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | * Dpbsmith, you using the same logic that Wikipedia's users use to push their bias. "Fox Derangement Syndrome" IS a "real" phrase...now. 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! -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 14:02, 17 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:02, June 17, 2007
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 Snippy comment cheerfully withdrawn.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. "Fox Derangement Syndrome" IS a "real" phrase...now. 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)