[002]
RichardAK
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes, wikis collect detritus. It\'s one thing to remove natter or examples that clearly could not possibly fit. It is another thing when you just have a legitimate difference of opinion over an example. Also, you do understand that whether or not the straw man\'s point is \
to:
Yes, wikis collect detritus. It\\\'s one thing to remove natter or examples that clearly could not possibly fit. It is another thing when you just have a legitimate difference of opinion over an example. Also, you do understand that whether or not the straw man\\\'s point is \\\"valid\\\" is a matter of opinion? Hence, {{YMMV}}?
I did read the trope description, and it doesn\\\'t say anything about how far it\\\'s reasonable to reach to find the straw man\\\'s point, which would still be a subjective issue in any case. (From my point of view, I didn\\\'t have to reach far at all, since the relevant information was right there on the shirt.) It does say \\\"the \\\'\\\'reader\\\'\\\' realizes,\\\" indicating an inherently subjective issue. It also says \\\"the straw-man argument turns out to not be \\\'\\\'as weak\\\'\\\' as the author planned,\\\" indicating that the straw man\\\'s point doesn\\\'t have to be overwhelmingly strong, just not as weak as planned.
In short, your entire argument boils down to saying \\\"I don\\\'t agree with the straw man\\\'s point in this case.\\\" What you\\\'re doing has nothing to do with responsible wiki editing. And I\\\'m done arguing about it, because we\\\'re just going around in circles.
I did read the trope description, and it doesn\\\'t say anything about how far it\\\'s reasonable to reach to find the straw man\\\'s point, which would still be a subjective issue in any case. (From my point of view, I didn\\\'t have to reach far at all, since the relevant information was right there on the shirt.) It does say \\\"the \\\'\\\'reader\\\'\\\' realizes,\\\" indicating an inherently subjective issue. It also says \\\"the straw-man argument turns out to not be \\\'\\\'as weak\\\'\\\' as the author planned,\\\" indicating that the straw man\\\'s point doesn\\\'t have to be overwhelmingly strong, just not as weak as planned.
In short, your entire argument boils down to saying \\\"I don\\\'t agree with the straw man\\\'s point in this case.\\\" What you\\\'re doing has nothing to do with responsible wiki editing. And I\\\'m done arguing about it, because we\\\'re just going around in circles.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes, wikis collect detritus. It\'s one thing to remove natter or examples that clearly could not possibly fit. It is another thing when you just have a legitimate difference of opinion over an example. Also, you do understand that whether or not the straw man\'s point is \
to:
Yes, wikis collect detritus. It\\\'s one thing to remove natter or examples that clearly could not possibly fit. It is another thing when you just have a legitimate difference of opinion over an example. Also, you do understand that whether or not the straw man\\\'s point is \\\"valid\\\" is a matter of opinion? Hence, {{YMMV}}?
I did read the trope description, and it doesn\\\'t say anything about how far it\\\'s reasonable to reach to find the straw man\\\'s point, which would still be a subjective issue in any case. (From my point of view, I didn\\\'t have to reach far at all, since the relevant information was right there on the shirt.) It does say \\\"the \\\'\\\'reader\\\'\\\' realizes,\\\" indicating an inherently subjective issue. It also says \\\"the straw-man argument turns out to not be \\\'\\\'as weak\\\'\\\' as the author planned,\\\" indicating that the straw man\\\'s point doesn\\\'t have to be overwhelmingly strong, just not as weak as planned.
In short, your entire argument boils down to saying \\\"I don\\\'t agree with the straw man\\\'s point\\\" in this case. What you\\\'re doing has nothing to do with responsible wiki editing. And I\\\'m done arguing about it, because we\\\'re just going around in circles.
I did read the trope description, and it doesn\\\'t say anything about how far it\\\'s reasonable to reach to find the straw man\\\'s point, which would still be a subjective issue in any case. (From my point of view, I didn\\\'t have to reach far at all, since the relevant information was right there on the shirt.) It does say \\\"the \\\'\\\'reader\\\'\\\' realizes,\\\" indicating an inherently subjective issue. It also says \\\"the straw-man argument turns out to not be \\\'\\\'as weak\\\'\\\' as the author planned,\\\" indicating that the straw man\\\'s point doesn\\\'t have to be overwhelmingly strong, just not as weak as planned.
In short, your entire argument boils down to saying \\\"I don\\\'t agree with the straw man\\\'s point\\\" in this case. What you\\\'re doing has nothing to do with responsible wiki editing. And I\\\'m done arguing about it, because we\\\'re just going around in circles.
