Difference between revisions of "Talk:Talk.origins"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
: Don't censor those terms and don't insert self-serving liberal descriptions. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | : Don't censor those terms and don't insert self-serving liberal descriptions. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I don't "censor" these terms. You may as well include "evolution" or "intelligent design" on the list. They're as much "talk.origin jargon" as "moving the goalposts" or "FSM". This is about jargon, not about "terms Andrew Schlafly wants to point out". | ||
| + | ::Your current "definition" is just "This is what creationists say about it". Don't you think this is extremely misleading? (No, don't answer - of course you don't.) | ||
| + | ::Anyway, I give up. You win. *takes article off his watch list* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:38, April 9, 2007
Is this a joke article or should it be edited to reflect the actual meaning of these words? Etaroced 15:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- Not a joke.
- You are welcome to improve it. --Ed Poor 15:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Jargon
I'm pretty sure most of those terms were used elsewhere first. Jrssr5 08:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- Same here. I at least removed "moving the goalposts" and "spaghetti monster" from the list (twice, but expect Andy to revert it again because it's "liberal deletions of factually correct terms" according to the History), but since I'm not sure about the rest, I inserted fact-tags.
- "Quote-mining" may have been introduced there (though it is now not really talk.origins-only jargon anymore), "goddidit" reminds me a lot of the classic "A wizard did it!", and "fundy loon" sounds very generic. --Sid 3050 08:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Jargon yet again
Andy, "moving the goalposts" and "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are NOT talk.origins jargon. The former has its roots outside the entire evolution/creation debate, and the latter has been covered in the news worldwide (with no reference to talk.origins that I know of), so it hardly qualifies as "jargon".
- Sid, I've never heard those terms used outside "talk.origins", but there are used in talk.origins frequently. Besides, this jargon does not have to be original to talk.origins, but merely popular there.
I also object to your edit of PRATT - the purpose is to give a definition, not to twist and turn things into what some creationists want people to believe. --Sid 3050 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your definition of that term is self-serving. Of course PRATT is used to avoid answering a question by claiming someone else answered somewhere. We're not here to give self-serving liberal explanations.
- Don't censor those terms and don't insert self-serving liberal descriptions. Thank you.--Aschlafly 10:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't "censor" these terms. You may as well include "evolution" or "intelligent design" on the list. They're as much "talk.origin jargon" as "moving the goalposts" or "FSM". This is about jargon, not about "terms Andrew Schlafly wants to point out".
- Your current "definition" is just "This is what creationists say about it". Don't you think this is extremely misleading? (No, don't answer - of course you don't.)
- Anyway, I give up. You win. *takes article off his watch list* --Sid 3050 10:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)