| Revision as of 15:21, 24 October 2006 editCharles8854 (talk | contribs)80 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:59, 25 October 2006 edit undoTrebor (talk | contribs)4,973 edits FNCNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| Thanks again, | Thanks again, | ||
| Charles ... | Charles ... | ||
| ==FNC== | |||
| I'm well aware of that fact and did, in fact, read the material. But yet the argument was going on and on and degenerating into mere personal attacks at the other person, and showed no sign of stopping. So I thought a definitive vote (which given your consensus you should easily win) would help finish the discussion rather than prolong it. And, to be fair to Cbuhl79, the original RfC concerned a different issue. You may think consensus had been reached over the whole wording; he (rightly or wrongly) disagrees. How do you foresee this argument ending if all he does is repeat his argument, and all you do is say you've already reached consensus. And your edit summary was far from assuming good faith, I might add. ] 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:59, 25 October 2006
Talk: Modern American Liberalism Explained
Blaxthos, political articles de facto belong to those with the greatest axe to grind and/or the greatest time on their hands. Weasel words and bad (or no) citations are like chisel and mallet in the hands of these artists as they carve their POV into an article. I respect your boldness in tagging the obvious, but know this: your "bogus" instigation has just placed you toe to toe with a veritable Wiki-Bernini. Tread carefully.
Sorry for being cryptic. It was a warning (kindly meant). That, despite the fact that you are dead right, you must beware of the time and frustration commitment required to keep political philosophy articles scholarly and to a Wiki standard. You must contend with the closet bloggers - who will simply dismiss as "bogus" any notion that the POV in their artcle is disputable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.120.14 (talk • contribs)
Andrew Jackson Jihad
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
FoxNews RfC/re:bait
I was just joking with the jealousy remark. No problem.
I am only tangentially participating in the RfC. I figured if people were to come to the article, there should be some showing that this is pure sour grapes by one holdout and that editors have reached a consensus. I was going to add my opinion to the RfC list page, but I think that would be against Wiki policy. That's why it's the first comment. Ramsquire 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for Archiving the Common-Law Talk-Page.
Yes. And thanks for preserving my last comments after you did your archiving, as my work there was/is on-going.
Also, i like you reference to forms of communism which ignore practical reality, I seem unable to view the video linked there-to. Is there any more simple ascii/text or html kinds of explanations of your point?
Thanks again, Charles ...
FNC
I'm well aware of that fact and did, in fact, read the material. But yet the argument was going on and on and degenerating into mere personal attacks at the other person, and showed no sign of stopping. So I thought a definitive vote (which given your consensus you should easily win) would help finish the discussion rather than prolong it. And, to be fair to Cbuhl79, the original RfC concerned a different issue. You may think consensus had been reached over the whole wording; he (rightly or wrongly) disagrees. How do you foresee this argument ending if all he does is repeat his argument, and all you do is say you've already reached consensus. And your edit summary was far from assuming good faith, I might add. Trebor 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)