|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: in case anyone was curious. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Sorry but that wasn't called for. It did not advance the conversation. If you had said "You're argument was stupid" it would have conveyed your point and been within the Guidlines.
No more of that. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
You inserted "a further case of dishonesty." in reference to cotracycle's post. If you had dropped that your post would have been fine.
Attacks on the other poster will not be tolerated. Stop it. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I just looked up "balsamic vinegar" on wikipedia as an example of a subject that I have a good deal of expertise in. The entry is quite limited and has several errors in it. Now, I may go ahead and correct the entry, but the point we are all trying to make to you is that if I had gone to this website of these people who I know who make balsamic, or this website which is the Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Reggio Emilia consorzio's official site in the first place, I would have found a much more accurate and authoritative and detailed description of how Balsamic vinegar is made and what it's history is. That's the chance you take with a volunteer encyclopedia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Lol, thats right. And the book is not the reserach institute. Tell me something else I don't know. The map is not the terrain - that does not imply the map is innacurate as a map. no, you're missing the point. go tilt at wind mills some more if you like. but wikipedia ≠ research. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. that a little different than a map. a map, in this analogy might be a textbook, and wikipedia would be the children's color book. and you're challenging, of all people, the cartographer of the map with it. "but, look," you say, "this bit's clearly blue and scribbled on. i don't see that on your map!" what's even funnier, is that you're challenging the cartographer on something that's not even part of his map. out of the boundaries.
Yes, becuase the answer was inadequate. now, i know the wording of the op was a little confusing. but this is was an offshoot of another thread between crashfrog and i and brenna, where he insisted that words have gender, even though they have no sex, and so applying gender based on social roles to other things without sex was ok. the response of the prof destroyed that point. the gender of nouns is not commenting on their role in society in the slightest. and that was all we needed to know. so no, actually, the answer of the prof was totally sufficent. the "origin of gender in languages" appears to be that they borrow it from their earlier source languages, and not that they make them up to suit their specific society. that's all we were looking for. so the fact that latin got its genders from indo-european languages is only supplimentary to this, and only further proves the point.
And you are confirming my charge: you privilege the status of the institution rather than the accuracy of the information. except that the information was not inaccurate. hey, sure, maybe it's missing the fact that latin got its genders from its indo-european roots. actually, wait on second though -- no it's not. let's read it again shall we?
quote: hmm. did we miss that part the first few times? so now tell me again, where is his reply inaccurate? can you point out something he forgot? or got wrong? there's even a bit about which genders where associated with what, and then HOW that transfered to modern romance languages. does wikipedia have that observation? it mentions them, but does it outline their history and integration in modern languages? tell me, where is the reply inaccurate?
Ha ha. Yes, and so what happens if you enter something that is contrary to the state of the art? Why someone who IS familiar with the state of art will correct it. presumably. want to run a test? also, as schraf pointed out, from wikipedia's entry on ITSELF,
quote: quote: I'm afraid I did'nt see any such article, I presume you created one - the link was empty when I hit it. But yes, that does demonstrate that the low standard you ASSUMED because you did not have a prestigious institution or reseracher associated with it was hasty. yes, well, as it turns out, they have an automatic filter that looks for things like name-calling, profanity, and pointlessly short entries. shall we try editting some real-sounding misinformation into a legitimate article, and actually TEST the standards according to the debate we're having?
By all means. After all, the information was correct, was it not? yes, but you have failed to substantiate these "virtue[s] of a common open resource." evidence please.
Funny how you seem less than hasty to dispute that point. Also telling that once again you refer back to a prior discussion about French that did not appear here. i dunno, that stuff in the opening post about latin, french, and romance languages should have been a hint. although, i agree. it was poorly introduced. the point is that you arrogantly decided to take on the expert opinion of an oxford professor of french, about the source of gender in the language he studies, claiming he'd fogotten a point he hadn't, and citing a hardly reputable source that didn't disagree with him. what was your point, exactly? and DO you do this just to be annoying? also, answer schraf's post while you're at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no jar.
i mean, he's arguing an issue that doesn't exist, and citing a wikipedia article over an oxford prof's professional opinion, which of course don't even disagree. on top of it, he's using this non-existant evidence to try to promote the merits of open-source encyclopedias while decrying the educated opinions of the people actually working in the field. basically, he's making an argument out of thin air and evidence that contradicts his point. he's either being stupid or dishonest. you can take your pick and suspend me for either. but it's not useful debate, and it's clogging up this thread with idiocy about what makes a reliable source. it is not what i would call debating in good faith. i would call it "being argumentative."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Remember, part of the training of all Good Commie Agitators is to create situations where the power of the state is brought down upon the very people supporting it. They are good at this. It is their sole weapon (other than creating terror).
If you let a Commie Agitator trick you into crossing the line while he remains safely straddling, it is you who get's hammered. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
[edit]
dammit woman, stop posting on my name. people are gonna think we're going out or something. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 04:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
your argument is overprotective.
and you spelled "your" incorrectly. <3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
shuttup you did it first, asshole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
shuttup you did it first, asshole. hey, i could get you banned for that, bitch. [a note to admins: we're just kidding]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
People, behave yourselves.
Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024