Changes

536 bytes added ,  15:21, April 9, 2007
reply, probably for the last time here
Line 31: Line 31:     
:::: By that logic, we can add any expression uttered by any author on talk-origins that has been used in popular speech since the user-group was invented. Surely the point of ''talk.origins is renowned for having its own jargon.'' - if it's renowed for it's OWN jargon, then that should be jargon that originated from that talkgroup. Otherwise the list will be an indiscriminate collection of information. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::: By that logic, we can add any expression uttered by any author on talk-origins that has been used in popular speech since the user-group was invented. Surely the point of ''talk.origins is renowned for having its own jargon.'' - if it's renowed for it's OWN jargon, then that should be jargon that originated from that talkgroup. Otherwise the list will be an indiscriminate collection of information. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: The above comments by Cgday and Sid are incredible.  "Evolution" and "intelligent design" are not *jargon* so of course they do not belong on the list.  The items listed are *jargon* and it doesn't matter where it originated.  The items are used, and used frequently, on talk.origins.  Maybe you don't like that fact, but it is a fact and the items should not be deleted from the jargon list so people can understand what talk.origins participants mean by these bizarre terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,369

edits