Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,827
edits
Changes
→Structure: response
*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way. Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way. Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.
**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctinated into the vague concept of "Leftism"; then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place. That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)