Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / Mukokuseki

Go To

[003] telomere Current Version

13th Jan '23 at 04:57:11 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

As I have explained, the paragraph begins by explaining a viewpoint in a way that presupposes the viewpoint is the truth, despite it being a fringe opinion that has little to no basis in reality. But then, the conclusion of the paragraph refutes the presupposition that the first part makes, which makes the paragraph come across as strange and poorly written. This article has been misinterpreted many times by many people, and this paragraph is probably a significant reason why.

to:

As I have explained, the paragraph begins by explaining a viewpoint in a way that presupposes the viewpoint is the truth, despite it being a fringe opinion that has little basis in reality. But then, the conclusion of the paragraph refutes the presupposition that the first part makes, which makes the paragraph come across as strange and poorly written. This article has been misinterpreted many times by many people, and this paragraph is probably a significant reason why.

Changed line(s) 5 from:

n

I don\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \

to:

I don\\\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \\\"confusing\\\" or \\\"unnecessary\\\", it would salvage the confused message that the paragraph currently has.

I\\\'m going to remove the part about \\\"zannen hafu\\\" for now, as the people in this discussion have agreed it shouldn\\\'t be there.

[002] telomere

13th Jan '23 at 04:55:21 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

The original edit that I made doesn\'t need to be there, but it would be a VERY simple change to add a few words to the beginning that clarify that the paragraph is from a CERTAIN point of view rather than being written as if that point of view is objective fact.

to:

Your reply to me seems as if you think I want to delete the paragraph or significantly change its contents, but that is not the case. The original edit that I made doesn\\\'t need to be there, but it would be a very simple change to add a few words to the beginning that clarify that the paragraph is from a CERTAIN point of view rather than being written as if that point of view is objective fact.

Changed line(s) 5 from:

n

I don\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \

to:

I don\\\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \\\"confusing\\\" or \\\"unnecessary\\\", it would salvage the confused message that the paragraph currently has.

I\\\'m going to remove the part about \\\"zannen hafu\\\" for now, as the people in this discussion have agreed it shouldn\\\'t be there.

[001] telomere

13th Jan '23 at 04:52:33 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

The original edit that I made doesn\'t need to be there, but it would be a VERY simple change to add a few words to the beginning that clarify that the paragraph is from a CERTAIN point of view rather than the absolute truth.

to:

As I have explained, the paragraph begins by explaining a viewpoint in a way that presupposes the viewpoint is the truth, despite it being a fringe opinion that has little to no basis in reality. But then, the conclusion of the paragraph refutes the presupposition that the first part makes, which makes the paragraph come across as strange and poorly written. This article has been misinterpreted many times by many people, and this paragraph is probably a significant reason why.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As I have explained already, the paragraph explains that viewpoint in a way that presupposes the viewpoint is the truth, despite all evidence in reality pointing to the contrary. The conclusion of the paragraph refutes the conjecture that the first part makes, which makes the paragraph come across as strange and poorly written. This article has been misinterpreted many times by many people, and this paragraph is probably a significant reason why.

to:

The original edit that I made doesn\\\'t need to be there, but it would be a VERY simple change to add a few words to the beginning that clarify that the paragraph is from a CERTAIN point of view rather than being written as if that point of view is objective fact.

Changed line(s) 5 from:

n

I don\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \

to:

I don\\\'t see any reason why someone would be so opposed to the addition of 2 or 3 words to a sentence just to clarify the intent of this poorly written paragraph. Rather than being \\\"confusing\\\" or \\\"unnecessary\\\", it would salvage the confused message that the paragraph currently has.

I\\\'m going to remove the part about \\\"zannen hafu\\\" for now, as the people in this discussion have agreed it shouldn\\\'t be there.

Top