imported>Hayford Peirce |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| == Enablers? == | | == Enablers? == |
|
| |
|
| Really, Howard, isn't that a very loaded, and editorializing, word? Particularly since you don't try to explain it at all or to expand the concept in any way. I really suggest that you find another heading. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| | {{freshstart}} |
|
| |
|
| :Feel free to substitute something. I said the article was intended to elicit participation on an important issue. Actually, I don't consider "enabler" to be especially loaded. An enabler is anything that assists something to happen; teachers are enablers of literacy. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| | Thank you. I'd prefer this to stay on the article. If a word is in question, an alternative can be suggested, not a lecture on how my choice is wrong. |
|
| |
|
| ::You know very well what the current meaning is! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| | There is an enormous amount of substance that can be contributed here, and I'd hoped to get that sort of collaboration. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC) |
| | |
| :::No, I don't. I know some 12-steppers like it. I'm not going to give up rational meanings, or long-established traditions such as anthropomorphizing ships, because you dislike it. As I've said, change it if you like. I have other things to do than argue about the nuanced meaning of a header. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::It's not a question of whether I like it or not, it's a question of correct usage, which, in an encyclopedia, ought to be our common goal. The meanings of words change. "Gay", for instance, is not used the same way it was 80 years ago. Ditto for "enablers". In fact, if you would bother to look at the dictionary first, you would see that the 12-step meaning is now the common one. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Have I made it clear that I am going to use what seems the best meaning in context, and I am not going to change simply because you believe "the dictionary" or "Google" says so? Again, you have every right to change it. I may change it back if I disagree, but I see no reason to change. I really don't want to continue these arguments about your convincing me about the meaning of "common" words, just as I am going to follow centuries of naval tradition and anthropomorphize ships. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::You've made it perfectly clearly, and I am actually rather shocked that you are basically saying that you don't care what is right or wrong and that you will continue to do things your way in spite of authoritative evidence to the contrary. Very few people like to admit that they are wrong about anything, even for the smallest, most trivial matters, but I am surprised that you take it to this extreme. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
Unquestionably an article to start controversy
I am wedded to little in this, certainly including the workgroups. Globalization, regional alliances, and cultural exchange, however, need to be covered somewhere. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Enablers?
The Constabulary has removed a conversation here that either in whole or in part did not meet Citizendium's Professionalism policy. Feel free to remove this template and take up the conversation with a fresh start.
Thank you. I'd prefer this to stay on the article. If a word is in question, an alternative can be suggested, not a lecture on how my choice is wrong.
There is an enormous amount of substance that can be contributed here, and I'd hoped to get that sort of collaboration. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
