Difference between revisions of "Talk:Inherit the Wind"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(nice work) |
(I plan on expanding this) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi, Philip. I like your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Inherit_the_Wind&diff=554411&oldid=554395 restoration] of the word "classic". Great minds think alike, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:16, 11 November 2008 (EST) | Hi, Philip. I like your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Inherit_the_Wind&diff=554411&oldid=554395 restoration] of the word "classic". Great minds think alike, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:16, 11 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | : As long as I find the time, I'm going to be expanding this article quite a bit, and doing away with the large direct quotes in the process. | ||
| + | : I agree (I think this is your thinking) that simply calling it a "classic" implies something good, which implication is best avoided. On the other hand, though, we need to recognise and acknowledge things like it being considered a classic, rather than pretend that this isn't the case. | ||
| + | : I nearly reverted your changes to the introduction, thinking that the new wording was a tad awkward and was getting into criticism before description, but the more I thought about it, the more I concluded that your wording was better than what was there before. I still think it could be improved, but that might come with the expansion and taking a rather different approach to the introduction. | ||
| + | : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 11 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 14:45, November 11, 2008
Hi, Philip. I like your restoration of the word "classic". Great minds think alike, eh? --Ed Poor Talk 09:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- As long as I find the time, I'm going to be expanding this article quite a bit, and doing away with the large direct quotes in the process.
- I agree (I think this is your thinking) that simply calling it a "classic" implies something good, which implication is best avoided. On the other hand, though, we need to recognise and acknowledge things like it being considered a classic, rather than pretend that this isn't the case.
- I nearly reverted your changes to the introduction, thinking that the new wording was a tad awkward and was getting into criticism before description, but the more I thought about it, the more I concluded that your wording was better than what was there before. I still think it could be improved, but that might come with the expansion and taking a rather different approach to the introduction.
- Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)