[003]
RichardAK
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \'\'not\'\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct?
to:
I\\\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\\\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct, or where the straw man\\\'s point is only a technical one? There may not be much of a trope left at that point.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \'\'not\'\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. Seriously, am I supposed to argue that the discipline of alchemy is correct in every way? Again, that would be an obvious straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct?
to:
I\\\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\\\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \'\'not\'\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. Likewise, am I supposed to argue that the discipline of alchemy is correct in every way? Again, that would be an obvious straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct?
to:
I\\\'m not putting it back, at least not right away, because I\\\'m not interested in an editing war on a wiki. I might put it back later. First though, let me submit that it is you who are CompletelyMissingThePoint. The point is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' that the discipline of alchemy is a completely valid scientific discipline. That would itself be a straw man for you to knock down. Seriously, am I supposed to argue that the discipline of alchemy is correct in every way? Again, that would be an obvious straw man for you to knock down. The point is that the StrawmanHasAPoint, not that the StrawmanIsCompletelyCorrectInEveryWay. The issue here is that the straw man, alchemy, actually does have a point: it is possible to transmute lead into gold, even though medieval alchemists obviously had no idea how to do it. But really, do you want to go through every example listed on the trope page and remove every single one someone could argue with, or every single one where the straw man is not completely correct?
