[003]
TrevMUN
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \
to:
I\\\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \\\"single-issue natter.\\\" This is patently impossible according to the definition of the term; natter is ConversationInTheMainPage, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' \\\"Examples You Don\\\'t Like.\\\"
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. The use of sub-examples to create a multi-part list under a primary example is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a case of natter. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
@/KiTA included some glaring examples of factual error in the examples he didn\\\'t remove. Under ManipulativeEditing, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement; it functions as an open forum for everyone, no matter what they believe.
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. The use of sub-examples to create a multi-part list under a primary example is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a case of natter. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
@/KiTA included some glaring examples of factual error in the examples he didn\\\'t remove. Under ManipulativeEditing, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement; it functions as an open forum for everyone, no matter what they believe.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \
to:
I\\\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \\\"single-issue natter.\\\" This is patently impossible according to the definition of the term; natter is ConversationInTheMainPage, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' \\\"Examples You Don\\\'t Like.\\\"
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. The use of sub-examples to create a multi-part list under a primary example is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a case of natter. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
@/KiTA included some glaring examples of factual error in the examples he didn\\\'t remove. Under ManipulativeEditing, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement.
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. The use of sub-examples to create a multi-part list under a primary example is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' a case of natter. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
@/KiTA included some glaring examples of factual error in the examples he didn\\\'t remove. Under ManipulativeEditing, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \
to:
I\\\'ve restored examples that @/KiTA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as \\\"single-issue natter.\\\" This is patently impossible according to the definition of the term; natter is ConversationInTheMainPage, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' \\\"Examples You Don\\\'t Like.\\\"
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
Furthermore, @/KiTA included some rather glaring examples of factual errors in the examples he edited. For example, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement.
Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. That @/KiTA labeled the examples he removed as \\\"single-issue natter\\\" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TVTropes {{Administrivia}}.
Furthermore, @/KiTA included some rather glaring examples of factual errors in the examples he edited. For example, he stated that [=BeliefNet=] is a \\\"Christian blog,\\\" when in actuality, [=BeliefNet=] is a multi-faith community, \\\'\\\'\\\'including\\\'\\\'\\\' atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). [=BeliefNet=] is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement.
