Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Not logged in
Log in | Help

User talk:Peeder

From dKosopedia

Unholy alliance

I am in general agreement with the tenor of this article, but could we think about rewriting it in a more neutral tone? To begin with, why put absurd in the definition? Yes it is absurd, in a way which you and I agree on. Moreover, I can figure out that it's absurd. Obviously, though some individuals dobn't think it's absurd.

Having conceptual clarity about what the term denotes, is in my view more important than immediately providing a judgement it. Yes it's fine to say it's absurd, but in a separate critical section, not in the introduction.

Who introduced the term? Is there any relation betwen this terminology and holy alliance? CSTAR 11:27, 3 Nov 2004 (PST)

peeder's response

Thank you, CSTAR, for writing. I guess I came up with the term myself although I think I have read it elsewhere. This is my definition for it and as such it has a decided slant to it. It is something I put in the "Meme Tank" and I just think it's a point of view and an analysis.

I didn't think DKosopedia was intended to be neutral...I thought it should be an opportunity to create a somewhat synergized and harmonized progressive point of view, and calling something that's inherently absurd, absurd, would be consistent with that. Maybe you feel it would be better to separate opinion from fact and therefore try to earn some legitimacy points, which I agree could be beneficial. I guess I didn't put much time into studying the standards the dkosopedia leadership has in mind.

I appreciate your edit and I am happy to leave it as you have made it. Thanks, peeder.--Peeder 19:18, 5 Nov 2004 (PST)

No, you are right, dKosopedia does not have to be neutral. That's what I meant. But do try write in a way that might appeal to someone that may not immediately share your viewpoint.CSTAR 21:54, 5 Nov 2004 (PST)


Why not create an article called

Political Neologisms

and put Doophemism in there. You can also put a wikilink to it from the Kossary article. Otherwise, the proliferation of articles will soon make dKosopedia much less useful.CSTAR 21:51, 5 Nov 2004 (PST)

--Peeder 12:09, 6 Nov 2004 (PST) Done

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../p/e/e/User_talk%7EPeeder_076c.html"

This page was last modified 20:09, 6 November 2004 by dKosopedia user Peeder. Based on work by dKosopedia user(s) CSTAR. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ

View source
Post a comment
View user page
Page history
What links here
Related changes
User contributions

Special pages
Bug reports