[008]
berr
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
In short, \'\'some\'\' but not all Tropers feel that it \'\'never be used\'\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \'\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\'\'. I.e. part of the community. It\'s not like it\'s some kind of \
to:
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' but there is no consensus for banning it, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article may be legitimate, until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase in articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression or subjective examples (non-person-specific), wherein it actually alleviates the chronic loss of the first person that every term-paper writer experiences. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post is like saying we shouldn\\\'t use pronouns either, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Locking the article may be legitimate, until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase in articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression or subjective examples (non-person-specific), wherein it actually alleviates the chronic loss of the first person that every term-paper writer experiences. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post is like saying we shouldn\\\'t use pronouns either, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
LockedPages claims: \'\'\
to:
LockedPages claims: [-This Troper: Attempts to make it self-demonstrating that undermine the point behind the article as well as attempts to rewrite the definition out of a misguided belief that saying it\\\'s okay on that page will all of the sudden change the prevailing attitude. It\\\'s simply not wanted at all outside of designated areas.-]
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article may be legitimate, until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase in articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression or subjective examples (non-person-specific), wherein it actually alleviates the chronic loss of the first person that every term-paper writer experiences. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post is like saying we shouldn\\\'t use pronouns either, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article may be legitimate, until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase in articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression or subjective examples (non-person-specific), wherein it actually alleviates the chronic loss of the first person that every term-paper writer experiences. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post is like saying we shouldn\\\'t use pronouns either, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
LockedPages claims: \'\'\
to:
LockedPages claims: \\\'\\\'\\\"This Troper: Attempts to make it self-demonstrating that undermine the point behind the article as well as attempts to rewrite the definition out of a misguided belief that saying it\\\'s okay on that page will all of the sudden change the prevailing attitude. It\\\'s simply not wanted at all outside of designated areas.\\\"\\\'\\\'
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages where first person is warranted is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
LockedPages claims: \'\'\
to:
LockedPages claims: \\\'\\\'\\\"This Troper: Attempts to make it self-demonstrating that undermine the point behind the article as well as attempts to rewrite the definition out of a misguided belief that saying it\\\'s okay on that page will all of the sudden change the prevailing attitude. It\\\'s simply not wanted at all outside of designated areas.\\\"\\\'\\\'
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'. I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages is highly circular and demanding. Simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom)
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks.
What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
The description on LockedPages insists: \
to:
LockedPages claims: \\\'\\\'\\\"This Troper: Attempts to make it self-demonstrating that undermine the point behind the article as well as attempts to rewrite the definition out of a misguided belief that saying it\\\'s okay on that page will all of the sudden change the prevailing attitude. It\\\'s simply not wanted at all outside of designated areas.\\\"\\\'\\\'
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'.
I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom) is highly circular and demanding.
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks. What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
In short, \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' but not all Tropers feel that it \\\'\\\'never be used\\\'\\\' outside of designated areas but there is no consensus, as established by the fact that ThisTroper is an \\\'\\\'idiomatic expression unique to, characterized by, and ubiquitous on this site\\\'\\\'.
I.e. part of the community. It\\\'s not like it\\\'s some kind of \\\"Common n00b mistake\\\" imported from elsewhere. (Although Fast Eddie & co. are of course to be thanked for \\\'\\\'creating\\\'\\\' this community, it has to be allowed its quirks, right?)
Locking the article is legitimate until there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' some sort of consensus, but this notion that \\\"you\\\'re supposed to say your name or X\\\" on those pages simply to avoid using a phrase that some (but not most or all) Tropers apparently find distasteful (for reasons I cannot fathom) is highly circular and demanding.
Obviously use of the phrase on the Main Page of articles should be restricted to idiomatic expression, since use of the first person is. The notion that Tropers should self-identify everything they post would imply that first-person pronouns are redundant, sort of like the \\\"adjectives are bad writing\\\" prescription of many (derided) grammatical textbooks. What if ThisTroper redirected to an article on WhenNotToUseFirstPerson?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The very fact that this thread exists is demonstrative that there is no consensus.
to:
The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that this is a contested issue. There is a consensus for when \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' to use ThisTroper, or more precisely, \\\'\\\'first person\\\'\\\'. But it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
There is a consensus for when not to use ThisTroper, or more precisely, \'\'first person\'\'. But it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
to:
The description on LockedPages insists: \\\"This Troper: Attempts to make it self-demonstrating that undermine the point behind the article as well as attempts to rewrite the definition out of a misguided belief that saying it\\\'s okay on that page will all of the sudden change the prevailing attitude. It\\\'s simply not wanted at all outside of designated areas.\\\"
