Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal wordiness"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Deletion: new section) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
1. A full explanation of liberal wordiness, so that the reader can be aware of it<br> | 1. A full explanation of liberal wordiness, so that the reader can be aware of it<br> | ||
2. Many Examples that properly demonstrate the idea and how it is deceptive<br> | 2. Many Examples that properly demonstrate the idea and how it is deceptive<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Deletion == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another user has proposed this article for deletion, and I have to say I agree. The premise itself is ridiculous and seems to have been devised solely within the context of this website. Of course a literary theorist is going to use more complex language than a statesman, they're addressing completely different audiences. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:24, 17 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 17:24, November 17, 2009
New article
Liberal wordiness I think is the backbone of liberal deception. I'm making this article with the following goals.
1. A full explanation of liberal wordiness, so that the reader can be aware of it
2. Many Examples that properly demonstrate the idea and how it is deceptive
Deletion
Another user has proposed this article for deletion, and I have to say I agree. The premise itself is ridiculous and seems to have been devised solely within the context of this website. Of course a literary theorist is going to use more complex language than a statesman, they're addressing completely different audiences. DWiggins 12:24, 17 November 2009 (EST)