Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal wordiness"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Deletion: new section) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
| + | :The audiences is a fair point, but I'd have you compare spades with spades: the down to earth speeches of conservatives with the confusing, rambling diatribes of a Kerry or Clinton; the incomprehensible nonsense of liberal marxist-revisionist historians with easy-to-comprehend conservative histories. Actually, the matter of audience is very important, as liberals ''try'' to exclude their audience. "Can't understand? Just trust the experts, US." I see the article's creator is an uncertain user, but the topic is a real one, as you can see from its place in [[Liberal style]]. Perhaps improve or correct before crying wolf? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:36, 17 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 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)
- The audiences is a fair point, but I'd have you compare spades with spades: the down to earth speeches of conservatives with the confusing, rambling diatribes of a Kerry or Clinton; the incomprehensible nonsense of liberal marxist-revisionist historians with easy-to-comprehend conservative histories. Actually, the matter of audience is very important, as liberals try to exclude their audience. "Can't understand? Just trust the experts, US." I see the article's creator is an uncertain user, but the topic is a real one, as you can see from its place in Liberal style. Perhaps improve or correct before crying wolf? DouglasA 12:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)