Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hominid"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Incorrect definition: I edited it to include the common usage) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:: Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT) | :: Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::: I agree, but common =/= actual. As [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup> | ||
Revision as of 19:28, May 12, 2007
Incorrect definition
I object to saying that the 2nd definition (human ancestors) is incorrect. If it is incorrect, then so is most usage. Are you saying that all these are incorrect? The Merriam-Webster dictionary [1] American Heritage [2] and these scientific pages. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] RSchlafly 14:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- It's a scientific term. It should be used as such. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
- Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. RSchlafly 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree, but common =/= actual. As Conservative and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
- Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. RSchlafly 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)