Talk:Claptrap - Revision history

DHouser at 15:37, January 29, 2013

2013-01-29T15:37:13Z

Aschlafly: reply

2013-01-27T20:07:03Z

DHouser: usage data

2013-01-27T18:50:19Z

usage data

New page

== Usage ==
Just looking at frequency of usage (based on the imperfect approach of using Google search counts):
:"liberal claptrap": 9,700 hits
:"religious claptrap": 38,000 hits
:"atheist claptrap": 812 hits
:"right-wing claptrap": 155,000 hits
:"neoconservative claptrap": 732 hits
:I've therefore reverted "neoconservative" to "right-wing" and restored "religious"
:--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 13:50, 27 January 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, January 29, 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:

	::Impefect indeed. Lots of liberal newspapers and blogs that few people read, and even fewer are helped by. Conservatives do not seek attention, or engage in pretension, so the term "claptrap" has no application to them.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 27 January 2013 (EST)		::Impefect indeed. Lots of liberal newspapers and blogs that few people read, and even fewer are helped by. Conservatives do not seek attention, or engage in pretension, so the term "claptrap" has no application to them.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 27 January 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	:::[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy]] I'm really at a loss to understand your argument here. No one has ever used the term "conservative claptrap" on this page, so I don't know why you bring it up. You seem to think that terms like "conservative," "religious" and "right-wing" are synonymous. As a counterexample, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a very religious man, but he's also extremely liberal.
		+	:::However, this is an entry on rhetoric, not on religion or politics. Whatever your thoughts in their validity, the evidence is (and you have offered no evidence whatsoever) that terms such as "religious claptrap" and "right-wing claptrap" are widespread. I make no comment on whether they are correct terms, but they are used and an encyclopaedia should reflect that.
		+	:::That said, of course, Conservapedia is your baby and you're free to apply what editorial policies you see fit. However, if you are going to reject the idea of a website edited by the [[best of the public]], then at least be careful in your own edits. Have a look at that entire paragraph and consider the implications of the second half of it now that you have removed any attempt at balance in the first. --[[User:DHouser\|DHouser]] 10:37, 29 January 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, January 27, 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:I've therefore reverted "neoconservative" to "right-wing" and restored "religious"		:I've therefore reverted "neoconservative" to "right-wing" and restored "religious"
	:--[[User:DHouser\|DHouser]] 13:50, 27 January 2013 (EST)		:--[[User:DHouser\|DHouser]] 13:50, 27 January 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	::Impefect indeed. Lots of liberal newspapers and blogs that few people read, and even fewer are helped by. Conservatives do not seek attention, or engage in pretension, so the term "claptrap" has no application to them.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 27 January 2013 (EST)