[007]
ArcadesSabboth
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\'t even know \'\'anything\'\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \'\'explicitly\'\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \
to:
It appears to me that you assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes and [[SocietyMarchesOn values]] recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before 509 BCE. Nevermind that we don\\\'t even know \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' recognizably Celtic oral stories existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of the sort, let alone the specific tropes from the surviving medieval versions. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything oral is automatically older than the dawn of all writing. Nobody has a clue \\\'\\\'what was in\\\'\\\' unwritten oral stories. As the description of the page specifies, early folklorists assumed that oral stories never ever change until after they\\\'re written down, but this assumption is \\\'\\\'demonstrably false\\\'\\\'. ScienceMarchesOn and HistoryMarchesOn.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false, and the page definition stated explicitly that it is false before I Got Known. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no applicable example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false historical statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods and/or \\\"arguable\\\" assumptions on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated \\\'\\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\'\\\' by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BCE. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false, and the page definition stated explicitly that it is false before I Got Known. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no applicable example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false historical statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods and/or \\\"arguable\\\" assumptions on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated \\\'\\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\'\\\' by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BCE. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\'t even know \'\'anything\'\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \'\'explicitly\'\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \
to:
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\\\'t even know \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \\\"primitive\\\" and oral is automatically older than the dawn of all writing. Nobody has a clue \\\'\\\'what was in\\\'\\\' unwritten oral stories. As the description of the page specifies, early folklorists assumed that oral stories never ever change until after they\\\'re written down, but this assumption is \\\'\\\'demonstrably false\\\'\\\'. ScienceMarchesOn and HistoryMarchesOn.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false, and the page definition stated explicitly that it is false before I Got Known. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false, and the page definition stated explicitly that it is false before I Got Known. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\'t even know \'\'anything\'\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \'\'explicitly\'\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \
to:
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\\\'t even know \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \\\"primitive\\\" and oral is automatically older than the dawn of all writing. Nobody has a clue \\\'\\\'what was in\\\'\\\' unwritten oral stories. As the description of the page specifies, early folklorists assumed that oral stories never ever change until after they\\\'re written down, but this assumption is \\\'\\\'demonstrably false\\\'\\\'. ScienceMarchesOn and HistoryMarchesOn.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes and declared to be historical facts.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\'t even know \'\'anything\'\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \'\'explicitly\'\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \
to:
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\\\'t even know \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \\\"primitive\\\" and oral is automatically older than the dawn of all writing. Nobody has a clue \\\'\\\'what was in\\\'\\\' unwritten oral stories. As the description of the page specifies, early folklorists assumed that oral stories never ever change until after they\\\'re written down, but this assumption is \\\'\\\'demonstrably false\\\'\\\'. ScienceMarchesOn and HistoryMarchesOn.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that XJustX should be on that index with no example.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
You continue to be uncivil and brusque. This is the last time I will discuss this matter with you.
to:
You continue to be uncivil and brusque.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\'t even know \'\'anything\'\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \'\'explicitly\'\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \
to:
You assume that the Celtic myths, in the exact form and with the exact same tropes recorded in the medieval HijackedByJesus texts, existed word-for-word before the Roman Republic. Nevermind that we don\\\'t even know \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' Celtic, including any recognizably Celtic oral stories, existed back then, since no written source from that period had recorded anything of recognizably Celtic stories. This kind of assumption is exactly what the page description \\\'\\\'explicitly\\\'\\\' warns against. It is an assumption that everything \\\"primitive\\\" and oral is automatically older than the dawn of all writing. Nobody has a clue \\\'\\\'what was in\\\'\\\' unwritten oral stories. As the description of the page specifies, early folklorists assumed that oral stories never ever change until after they\\\'re written down, but this assumption is \\\'\\\'demonstrably false\\\'\\\'. ScienceMarchesOn and HistoryMarchesOn.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that every trope should be on that index with no example whatsoever.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
We KNOW that oral stories change continually, and that written stories also change every time somebody writes a new version. Claiming that they never ever change is demonstrably false. Not being Wikipedia doesn\\\'t mean actual falsehoods, \\\'\\\'known to be false\\\'\\\', should be posted on TVtropes.
ExamplesAreNotArguable. \\\'\\\'\\\'Any\\\'\\\'\\\' trope on the entire wiki \\\"might\\\" be older than 509 BCE. That does not mean that every trope should be on that index with no example whatsoever.
I realize that no POV means the wiki can\\\'t, for example, take a side in creationism vs. evolution. But if these assumptions are to be published on the wiki they should not be labeled as historical fact. This index, \\\'\\\'as currently defined\\\'\\\', makes a historical claim about the date of invention of specific artistic concepts.
I started the cleanup because the demonstrably false statements bothered me hugely. I\\\'m \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' disputing the CometOfDoom example you added or demanding a scientific paper proving it exists. I didn\\\'t add it before because I merely \\\'\\\'did not know about it\\\'\\\'... which doesn\\\'t make me a pedantic jerk. But I am opposed to putting falsehoods on this wiki and declaring them to be historical facts.
Celtic and Norse myths are not OlderThanDirt. This was stated explicitly by the page description/definition before I Got Known, and the reason was explicitly because they were not written down before 500 BC. If you disagree with the current page description, (which I did not write), please take it to the Trope Repair Shop thread for this index.
If you dispute that ExamplesAreNotArguable, this is not the place to discuss that either.
I will continue to maintain this page according to the \\\'\\\'current description\\\'\\\' (which I did not write) until a \\\'\\\'\\\'consensus\\\'\\\'\\\' is reached \\\'\\\'on the TRS\\\'\\\' to redefine the index. I will continue to discuss it only on that thread.
