Difference between revisions of "Talk:Recovered Memory"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(my objection in detail)
(Two Cents)
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
::Actually, lots of movies and TV shows credit characters as "Young CharacterName" when its the younger version of that character, so I think it makes sense to credit them like that, personally. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:12, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
 
::Actually, lots of movies and TV shows credit characters as "Young CharacterName" when its the younger version of that character, so I think it makes sense to credit them like that, personally. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:12, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Works for me. I was going to add "Zoey can change it if she wants to my last comment, but it was self-evident. :P - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:13, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Works for me. I was going to add "Zoey can change it if she wants to my last comment, but it was self-evident. :P - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 18:13, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
:*further, i would create separate pages for [[Young Bree]] and [[Young Gina]].  Although they are related, they should be treated as separate characters because they belong to a separate universe, the universe of ''breeniverse past''. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
+
:*further, i would create separate pages for Young Bree and Young Gina.  Although they are related, they should be treated as separate characters because they belong to a separate universe, the universe of ''breeniverse past''. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 
::I wouldn't, especially since we know next to nothing about them from when they were younger. If we get a significant amount of information, I'd think a subsection of the existing pages would make more sense. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 19:37, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
 
::I wouldn't, especially since we know next to nothing about them from when they were younger. If we get a significant amount of information, I'd think a subsection of the existing pages would make more sense. - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 19:37, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
:::I agree. It's not a separate universe, just a different time period in the same universe. So there's no reason info about Young Bree couldn't go on Bree's page. It is the same person after all.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 02:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
  
 
== a + b = c ==
 
== a + b = c ==
Line 110: Line 112:
 
you said: First of all, this is utter bullshit.
 
you said: First of all, this is utter bullshit.
 
:*nice language.  the problem with leading with a note conjunction is more problematic than leading a note with a conjunction.  the problem is that a note should lead with the subject.  the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...).  my notes are conclusion-centric.  i begin with ''redsuv51'' every time because that is the subject of the note and likewise, it should be the subject of the sentence.  aesthetic and artistic creativity have nothing to do with pedia.  if you knew me in my personal life, you would know that artistic creativity is important to me and i would not snuff a valid opportunity to be creative.  this is simply not the place.
 
:*nice language.  the problem with leading with a note conjunction is more problematic than leading a note with a conjunction.  the problem is that a note should lead with the subject.  the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...).  my notes are conclusion-centric.  i begin with ''redsuv51'' every time because that is the subject of the note and likewise, it should be the subject of the sentence.  aesthetic and artistic creativity have nothing to do with pedia.  if you knew me in my personal life, you would know that artistic creativity is important to me and i would not snuff a valid opportunity to be creative.  this is simply not the place.
 +
 +
you said: it looks like LGPedia is too stupid to come up with a new way to start a sentence
 +
:*comments like this make me wonder how old you are.  i am twenty five years old.  i am a navy veteran and served in operation iraqi freedom.  i am currently enrolled and only thirty credits away from attaining a degree in journalism.  in my free time, i study philosophy, rhetoric and history.  if you were my equal in either real world experience or education, you would know better than to make statements like this.
 +
 +
you said: The important information is that E.A. was likely the only other person attending the meeting, and that she was connected to Verdus.
 +
:*this is true.  the sentence can always be reworked but i want redsuv51 to remain the subject.  chatroom user redsuv51 is alike to EA in that includes herself in the exclusive meeting and the user name can be linked to verdus.  something.  i'm sleepy and i have class in the morning.  comm law.
  
 
regarding: "redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus."
 
regarding: "redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus."
 
:*grammar time.  the subject of the sentence is ''redSUV51''.  ''is'' is the verb.  ''elizabeth avery'' is the direct object.  ''because'' acts as a conjunction between the two sentences that complete the thought.  to use the pronoun ''she'' as the subject of the second sentence would be confusing because it would be unclear if the pronoun is referring to the subject of the direct object of the previous sentence.  it is shamelessly clumsy in the name of clarity.
 
:*grammar time.  the subject of the sentence is ''redSUV51''.  ''is'' is the verb.  ''elizabeth avery'' is the direct object.  ''because'' acts as a conjunction between the two sentences that complete the thought.  to use the pronoun ''she'' as the subject of the second sentence would be confusing because it would be unclear if the pronoun is referring to the subject of the direct object of the previous sentence.  it is shamelessly clumsy in the name of clarity.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*the issue regarding etymology of redsuv51 is not solved by adding ''it has been noted''.}}
 +
::Luckily, I don't pretend it is. I'm just honest enough to admit that I have no actual ''evidence'' of the proof. Other than you, who openly admits the etymology is un"solved", but still implies the intention as an anagram is a 100% proven fact.
 +
:::the ''it has been noted'' phrase doesn't do anything for your sentence and you continue to pretend it does - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Yes it does. It shows the reader that this was something noted by third parties, and not a confirmed intention by the Creators.
 +
::::You know...difference between unsourced allegation and confirmed fact? Ring any bells?
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*yes i can. in the western world, we read from top to bottom.}}
 +
::No you can't. Because, in the western world, we also skip parts we don't want to read. And if somebody is only interested in the notes, he'll gladly scroll down and start reading at "Notes".
 +
::In addition, your point fails anyway. Because this is not "the western world" with its outdated hardcopies, this is the World Wide Web. I can simply link to #Notes, and the Notes section ''is'' the top.
 +
:::*you are free to skip, knowing that you might have to scroll back up. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Yes. I am free, and everybody else is free. Thus, you can ''not'' assume everybody has read the entire page.
 +
::::Of course you know that - otherwise you'd have disputed the link comment.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*these conditions are not analogous.  rhetorical analysis and literary analysis are not the same thing.}}
 +
::Neither unspecified "conditions" nor the difference between rhetorical analysis and literary analysis are of relevance to my point. Either you continue with "because..." and give proof, or you just stated your personal opinion, and my point stands.
 +
::Of course, given that no "conditions" are relevant, since I merely applied what you already did to a different anagram, it's kinda hard for you to argue factually against it.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*i am arguing for functionality and clarity and you are worried about aesthetic.}}
 +
::Yes, I am worried about aesthetic, because my notes already included all facts and were clearer than yours ''before'' you replaced them with your attempt. I don't have to worry about "functionality and clarity", because I got mine right the first time.
 +
::I am not arguing about the "functionality and clarity" of my notes. I am pointing out the ''lack'' of functionality, clarity ''and'' aesthetic in ''your'' notes.
 +
:::*you are just being difficult. why i bother to point out your flawed logic is beyond me. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Lacking proof, and a hilarious attempt to sound superior.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|also, you are always so quick to belittle me.}}
 +
::Noting that somebody who fails at something has no business teaching it to others is no belittlement, it's a basic fact of life.
 +
::You wouldn't let somebody who had 10 accidents and lost his license twice teach others how to drive, either.
 +
:::*analogies do not make good arguments.  analogies are effective only in conveying concepts.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Lacking proof, personal opinion.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|you said: First of all, this is utter bullshit.<br>*nice language.}}
 +
::Isn't it?
 +
:::it is a testament to your stellar arguing skills. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::You mean the ones that made you run to Zoey for help?
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|the problem with leading with a note conjunction is more problematic than leading a note with a conjunction.  the problem is that a note should lead with the subject.  the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...).}}
 +
::Therefore, I did it perfectly right. I should lead with the subject, and did so. Go me.
 +
::(Independent from the fact that you destroyed your own point there, it is also completely unfounded in real life. Introductions like "According to recent reports, the something...", "As I noted in a previous post...", "Because of a death in the family..." and so on are a normal part of the English language.)
 +
:::*you could say "because of a death in the family, i was sad" or you could say "i was sad because of a death in the family" and you prefer the former while i prefer the latter.  your focus is death in the family and my focus is i am sad.  the subject remains the same.  my sentence is more clear - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Lacking proof, personal opinion.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|my notes are conclusion-centric.  i begin with ''redsuv51'' every time because that is the subject of the note and likewise, it should be the subject of the sentence.}}
 +
::#Your basis is wrong, again. You, personally, ''would like'' to be "redSUV51" the subject of the sentence, and you, personally, are incapable of achieving that in any other way than by placing it right in the beginning. The subject of the third note is ''not'' necessarily redSUV51, it can also be Bree's mom. (Bree's mom is redSUV vs. redSUV is Bree's mom.)
 +
::#Independent from these attempts to pretend I did not adhere to your personal preference of phrasing and your personal preference is The One True Way To Go, in both "It has been noted that 'redSUV51', the name of the mysterious chatter, is an anagram for 'Verdus15'," as well as "At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.", redSUV51 is ''still'' the subject. What is an anagram for Verdus15? redSUV51, the name of the mysterious chatter. Who switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting? redSUV51.
 +
::If you want to give grammar lections, make sure you're actually capable of finding it in a sentence.
 +
:::*when have i failed to find the subject?  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::For anyone who can read, it is very clear "it" refers to "grammar" (the word "subject" not even existing), the sentence implying that you are incapable of finding "grammar", i.e. grammatical structures as a whole, in the sentence.
 +
::::In addition, "the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...)." followed by "i begin with ''redsuv51'' every time because that is the subject of the note" clearly expresses that you think the beginning of my sentence is automatically my subject - which a) simply wrong on any account, and b) shows that you fail to find the subject of a sentence.
 +
 +
::::Also, ''didn't work''.
 +
::::I still saw that you didn't contest your basis is wrong ''or'' that my subject is still correctly chosen, instead trying to divert to a minor ending point.
 +
 +
::In addition, according to your phrasing, redSUV51 is the conclusion of your statements.
 +
redSUV51 initially tells Gina to go to the meeting, but later switches to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
 +
::Now explain to me how redSUV51 is the conclusion in that sentence. ''I'' think the conclusion is "redSUV51's choice of words implies s/he will be at the meeting.". But hey, that's just me, and apparently, you're the Grandmaster of Grammar...
 +
 +
::::Oh look...he can't!
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|aesthetic and artistic creativity have nothing to do with pedia.  if you knew me in my personal life, you would know that artistic creativity is important to me and i would not snuff a valid opportunity to be creative.  this is simply not the place.}}
 +
::Yeah, I'm sure that's why we have formatting guides, cleanup templates, Zoey invests countless hours in image polishing, we do redesigns, need I go on?
 +
::Basic, everyday pedia life disproves this allegation. LGPedia needs to look good. That's not even up for discussion. Factual accuracy is more important than how it looks, but given that my notes included more information than yours, were more accurate, ''and'' looked better, that doesn't apply, either.
 +
::But if that is truly your opinion, I'd love to see you to go tell Zoey that. XD
 +
:::*clarity of poetry?  which is more important?  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::Cheap attempt at diversion. I have never talked of poetry, and I have pointed out that my notes have at least the same, if not more clarity than yours.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*comments like this make me wonder how old you are.  i am twenty five years old.  i am a navy veteran and served in operation iraqi freedom.  i am currently enrolled and only thirty credits away from attaining a degree in journalism.  in my free time, i study philosophy, rhetoric and history.  if you were my equal in either real world experience or education, you would know better than to make statements like this.}}
 +
::I don't know what's funnier - your oh-so-rhetoric attempt of diversion, or the ridiculous attempt to belittle me.
 +
::If you actually had studies rhetoric, then you'd know that both mine and your personal background are immaterial to this discussion. What's important are the facts. And fact is, from the statements you've made so far in your post, you have no idea of the English language in everyday life ''and'' are incapable of locating a subject in a sentence - during an attempt on grammar lecture, nonetheless.
 +
:::*that was not an attempt to belittle you.  i was reminding you that you should know better than to make personal attacks.  further, personal background, merits and credentials have everything to do with rhetoric.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::On what basis are you trying to tell me I "should know better"? Your imaginary skills?
 +
::::And I will take your insistence that personal background has any relevance to factual accuracy as proof that you truly didn't study rhetoric.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|*this is true.  the sentence can always be reworked but i want redsuv51 to remain the subject.  chatroom user redsuv51 is alike to EA in that includes herself in the exclusive meeting and the user name can be linked to verdus.  something.  i'm sleepy and i have class in the morning.  comm law.}}
 +
::Thank you. "the sentence can always be reworked but '''i want''' redsuv51 to remain the subject."
 +
::The fact that ''you want it'' does not make it better, the best, or the only solution. It just makes it your personal opinion.
 +
:::i want it because it is better  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
:::Lacking proof, personal opinion.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|:*grammar time.  the subject of the sentence is ''redSUV51''.  ''is'' is the verb.  ''elizabeth avery'' is the direct object.  ''because'' acts as a conjunction between the two sentences that complete the thought.  to use the pronoun ''she'' as the subject of the second sentence would be confusing because it would be unclear if the pronoun is referring to the subject of the direct object of the previous sentence.  it is shamelessly clumsy in the name of clarity.}}
 +
::errrrrrrrrrm, no.
 +
::Yes, you can, on theoretical level, claim that, technically, "she" ''might'' refer to redSUV51.
 +
::But in reality, it is very clear "she" refers to Elizabeth simply ''because'' of the "because". The first sentence introduces the theory that redSUV51 is E.A. The second sentence explains why redSUV51 is thought to be ''her''. Why is redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery? Because she is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and she is the chairman of Verdus.
 +
::In addition, I was just showing the plethora of ways your sentence could've been improved. As I have proven in public, I would not have phrased it that way anyway.
 +
:::*you have not proven anything.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
::::And you wonder why I question your intelligence.
 +
::::I have very much proven that I wouldn't phrase it that way anyway......by not phrasing it that way in the first place.
 +
 +
::::And for someone so skilled, so studied and oh so great in rhetoric, you sure show a grave lack of politeness. Quit writing around in my replies. If you want to reply, add a reply. Don't modify mine. We have a quote template for a reason.
 +
::::Fourth level is mine.
 +
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
:::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
==Two Cents==
 +
Okay -- I've been reading the posts that have vaguely been on-topic and I just want to say to everyone involved: Seriously, ''calm  . . . down''.  I'm all for civil discussions and such (and this one hasn't been too crazy yet), but these things have pratically become almost daily "treats" here at the LGPedia and discussions really need to stop reaching the point of bickering to where it's essentially ridiculous.  I personally don't care who is right in the end, I'm just asking everyone to take a deep breath and relax a bit.
 +
:That said, reading through the different versions of the notes being discussed, here's my two cents: Note 1) The original version ''It has been noted that "redSUV51", the name of the mysterious chatter, is an anagram for "Verdus15", likely a reference both to [[Verdus Pharmaceuticals]], where [[Elizabeth Avery|Bree's mother]] works, as well as to Bree's username [[lonelygirl15]].'' is not overly redundant and it isn't terribly gramatically wrong.  If anything, remove the words "likely a" and just say "refrences to both" as it IS clear that if the anagram is a reference to ''anything'' it WOULD be Verdus and lg15.
 +
:As for Note 2), IMO, it's just not significant enough to even note, it's that obvious from the video/chat.  Finally, I think Note 3) could be better said as ''The theory that Elizabeth Avery was redSUV51 was later reinforced in the video The Devil Speaks, where she met Gina at the park alone''.
 +
:alrighty then -- that's my two shinny pennies on the matter :) --[[User:Phoenician|Pheon]] 02:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
::Look, there's no reason for anyone to take any of this personally. If someone doesn't like your note or disagrees with you or whatever, ''it's not an attack against you''. If people just keep that in mind, I think we would avoid a lot of the problems we have here. I'm not pointing out anything specific here, but (like Pheon said) it looks like it's headed that direction. So let's keep it from going there, okay? Thanks.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 02:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
:::Jon, I don't think he's personally attacking me, and even if he was, I wouldn't care. I just think his notes sound terrible, and I don't see why we have to replace perfectly fine sounding, accurate notes with bumpy, repetitive, incomplete versions just because he starts an edit war instead of proving his are better in a discussion.
 +
 +
::Pheon, I consider the second note important because, in the past, henchmen have tried to urge girls to take actions for their masters. Gemma tried to give advice and nudge Bree in the right direction in the name of OpAphid, Daniel did the same when he was kidnapped, Claire tried to get to Emma in Porter's name - it wouldn't have been a first that someone else tries to do the convincing. The sudden change in phrasing gave a strong clue that it was not just another Hymn of One guy going "Do the ceremony!", but actually E.A. urging her to come. In addition, "go to the meeting" implies the speaker is a third person that knows about the meeting, which, in turn, strongly indicates a trap, whereas E.A. personally coming to chat supports the assumption she would be alone.
 +
::iow, it ''does'' make a difference which phrasing is chosen, and, as such, a sudden change in phrasing is, at least in my opinion, noteworthy.
 +
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now.  the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out.  renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence.  i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks.  i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right.  i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego.  i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another.  flip a coin if you have to.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now.}}
 +
::Generic phrasing in an attempt to discredit. Which mistakes?
 +
:::keep reading
 +
::::Nice try, but the rest of your post talks about what an evil, evil person I am, with no relation or reference to this part of your post. So, are you going to at least try to prove your ridiculous allegations, or just admit that that was a bad attempt to talk me down?
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out.}}
 +
::Unsourced.
 +
:::*i'll source myself.
 +
::::Fine - then do so. Links?
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence.}}
 +
::I have threatened to banned you because you spammed the pedia. Something you did ''again'' by ignoring general procedures and insisting on forcing a disputed edit on the page in an edit war.
 +
:::*i could claim the same against you, that you are spamming the edit page by reverting MY edits.  why are you edits more valuable than mine.  further, what administrative rights do you have to threaten users with administrative action?
 +
::::No, you couldn't. You changed, I disputed your change. That is not spam, that is normal procedure. Had you gone to discussion immediately, everything would've been fine. Hell, I even showed the courtesy to ignore the fact that you ignored procedure and edit-war'd your revision back in, reverted, and initiated a discussion myself. Instead of going with the discussion and waiting for the outcome, you tried to force your revision in ''again''.
 +
::::This is not about ''my'' revision being more "valuable" than yours. This is about ''any'' original revision being the basis on which changes are discussed. That has nothing to do with whose revision the original is.
 +
 +
::::And, once more, you are lying ''and'' you try to paint an evil picture of me by implying I randomly threaten users with "administrative action". How about you skip the propaganda part and actually source your allegations? Link us. Show us these "users" which I allegedly threaten with "administrative action".
 +
 +
::The fact that I threatened to ban you is ''not'', in itself, an illegitimate act of aggression. If anything, you could attack my ''reasoning'' for threatening to ban you.
 +
:::*it is an act of aggression.  you might as well flag my talk page with ''stfu''
 +
::::You're trying to evade the point - again. The fact that I threatened to ban you is ''not'', in itself, an illegitimate act of aggression. If anything, you could attack my ''reasoning'' for threatening to ban you. (All of that still ignoring that you are lying.)
 +
 +
::However, given that '''you are lying''' anyway, that's irrelevant anyway.
 +
 +
::In addition, I find it rather hilarious that you are trying to discredit me, while both [[User talk:Platypusrex256|your talk page]] as well as [[Talk:Mexican Mating Machine]] show quite clearly that this is not the first time you're trying to pull this exact thing, and that you're ''constantly'' clashing with the administration over these matters.
 +
:::*i am not constantly clashing with anybody but you.
 +
::::You are not constantly engaging in ''long discussions'' with anybody but me - mostly because you previously clashed mostly with administrators.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks.}}
 +
:Invalid. Lacks proof my analogies are not relevant, lacks proof of red herrings and fails to show any "personal attacks".
 +
::*analogies have no place in arguments.  when i argue against the ''it has been noted'' phrase, dodge the issue.  and you told me that i have no grasp on the english language.  what proof do i need?
 +
:::Proof that ridiculous claims like "analogies have no place in arguments" are true in any way, shape or form.
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right.}}
 +
:And that justifies an editing war instead of following common procedure and courtesy?
 +
::so let me get it strait... if there is any confusion about your phrasing, it should remain at your phrasing until you admit that you are wrong.  which is never?  who decides in the end?
 +
:::No. It should remain the original phrasing until ''the majority'' decides it should be changed. If it was as obvious as you pretend it is, this discussion would never have happened.
 +
:::Instead, you're the only one advocating your phrasing, while only minor alterations of my phrasing have been proposed. Funny, isn't it?
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego.}}
 +
:Untrue and unsourced. In fact, I have shown up multiple times how your writing is lacking in style, as well as how my notes are more accurate.
 +
::look above.  look below.  you display your ego every time you place an editorial adverb in front of your verbs that describe my actions.
 +
:::Then it should be easy to take any given sentence and show that. So why are you still refusing to show proof?
 +
 +
 +
:{{quote|platy|i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another.  flip a coin if you have to.}}
 +
:Pathetic attempt to get your will without having to actually prove your notes are the better choice.
 +
::i would never attach such an adverb to your actions.  you've called me pathetic and feeble and stupid before and you keep crying ''untrue and unsourced!''
 +
:::Well, if you actually sourced your allegations for a change, I'd have no reason to note the lack of source and proof.
 +
 +
:In addition, learn to use the preview button. Not only are you spamming recent changes and generated dozens of useless revisions, but not knowing when you're done, or being conflicted by the next sentence of your reply is also extremely annoying for anyone else using a page.
 +
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
it is a personal attack when you editorialize your verbs with colorful adverbs such as pathetic and feeble and stupid.  it not a personal attack but a fact (i should hope it is a fact) that you should know better.  i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have the education and discipline to formulate a decent argument but you give me no reason to believe.
 +
 +
:That attempt to get Zoey to decide arbitrarily instead of reading the discussion ''was'' pathetic. There simply exists no other word to describe it. You keep going reply after reply with unsourced allegations and ridiculous claims, your sole arguments seem to be that you (allegedly) studied rhetoric, and thus, you're automatically right, and that I'm a bad, bad man and shouldn't even be talking.
 +
 +
:I have pointed out how badly phrased your notes are. I have pointed out how your attempts to do the same with mine fail and are not based in reality. Instead of tackling my arguments, you keep screaming my methods are invalid without a glimpse of proof for these claims.
 +
 +
:If you actually had studied rhetoric and could actually prove your notes are far superior to mine, then your first post should have utterly destroyed me. Instead, you're down to a point where you try to discredit me personally, try to force your own, personal discussion rules upon me, question the validity of the discussion as a whole, and try to get others to quickly decide a "winner" before I post a reply.
 +
:If you had as much skill in this as you would like us to believe, this discussion would long be over. Because I can't argue against facts. Alas, no matter how much you claim to have studied this and that I should know better than to argue against you, factual evidence is not your strong side so far.
 +
:You keep insisting I'm doing it all wrong, that I'm just insulting you, that I have no idea, and so on. How about ''you'' just do it right, for once? Show your magical Super Rhetoric Man skills. Drop the whole "Renegade is evil" and "Help me Zoey" angles and just concentrate on the facts. Show us some proof instead of yet another round of "omgomgomg Ren is so evil and has no idea! I'm right! I studied this!".
 +
:Because, if you were as good as you pretend to be, I would automatically fail at proving you wrong, and everyone else would agree with you.
 +
 +
:Oh, and btw - the fact that your replies are practically invisible within other replies is another reason we don't practise the impolite style. But I guess we've already seen you don't care about that...
 +
:::Third level is mine.
 +
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
== further proposal for structure ==
 +
 +
i suggest that the notes section be removed and replaced with a new system.  from now on, episode pages should contain:
 +
:a) script
 +
:b) links to ''separate pages'', containing additional text, such as chat room transcript and forum entries.
 +
:c) literary devices (such as foreshadowing, etymology and symbolism... and the anagram)
 +
:d) reoccuring themes (such as [[feminism]], [[inebriated]] and [[relationships]]
 +
:e) theories (such as redsuv51 = EA)
 +
:::- [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
in all fairness, the notes concerning the chat should be moved to the page that has already been created and is dedicated to the chat - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
 +
:There is nothing justifying such an administrative effort, especially since everybody but platy is fine with the current structure, ''and'' in most cases, it's only one note on each topic anyway - there's no use creating an entire subpage for one line.
 +
:Also, you forgot a subpage for userboxes.
 +
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
::*get off my case.  let the community speak for themselves.  the more you talk the more reason i have to believe that it is you that should be banned.  not me.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 +
 +
:::Please, just calm down. Geez. Ren is part of the community too and everyone has an equal opportunity to respond. And I agree that we don't need an elaborate structure for notes. Things look fine as they are, and the phrasing of the note can indicate what type of note it is.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 14:30, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 +
::::it might clear up some issues and provide opportunity for embellishment.  have you seen lostpedia? - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]

Latest revision as of 21:30, 2 April 2008

Young Bree and Gina

Shouldn't the young actresses get credit nods? --TimiN 17:23, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

I just added them as Bree and Gina; no need for "Young Bree" and "Young Gina", that just seemed silly. That was in of itself tricky, since the VidChar template takes things over on its own... - Shiori 17:58, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Actually, lots of movies and TV shows credit characters as "Young CharacterName" when its the younger version of that character, so I think it makes sense to credit them like that, personally. --Zoey 18:12, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Works for me. I was going to add "Zoey can change it if she wants to my last comment, but it was self-evident. :P - Shiori 18:13, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
  • further, i would create separate pages for Young Bree and Young Gina. Although they are related, they should be treated as separate characters because they belong to a separate universe, the universe of breeniverse past. - platy
I wouldn't, especially since we know next to nothing about them from when they were younger. If we get a significant amount of information, I'd think a subsection of the existing pages would make more sense. - Shiori 19:37, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
I agree. It's not a separate universe, just a different time period in the same universe. So there's no reason info about Young Bree couldn't go on Bree's page. It is the same person after all.--Jonpro 02:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

a + b = c

the three points have been arranged in a mathematical structure.

  • condition one (a) is that the screen name is an anagram for verdus15. condition two (b) is that the user implies that they will be present at the meeting. the conclusion (c) is that the user is elizabeth
  • the conclusion is dependant and yet separate from the conditions. if you want to expand on the conclusion, you are free to do so.

- platy

  1. Writing prose is not maths.
  • i wouldn't call it prose. it's a logical argument. - platy
I'm talking about the notes.
  1. Even if you could argue that way, it still wouldn't change the multiple other problems with your phrasing I listed elsewhere.
  • you can argue this way. take a course in logic sometime. - platy
Then go and use that way to argue the other problems with your phrasings I listed, instead of trying failing to place cheap insults.
  1. You're still lacking the courtesy to adhere to common procedures and leave the page alone until the discussion is finished.
  • You don't adhere to those procedures, either. - platy
Yes I did - as we have, just recently, discussed, it is common procedure to revert to the original revision and then discuss the proposed changes based on the unaltered revision. You are the one not adhering to that. I merely tried to find a middle way since you were (and are) obviously not going to stop your edit war.
  1. If that's your only concern, you should be fine with this version. No need to change it anymore.
  • My objection is that you insist on long phrases and you think its poetry. - platy
I at no time implied I thought my notes were poetry. And as I have explained multiple times to you, these "long phrases" are explanations of the facts behind your broken implications. But apparently you think explanations, or even just basic admitting that you don't know anything 100% safely, are redundant.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

my objection in detail

dear fellow pedians, please excuse the continuing argument between user:renegade and myself. my only hope in these continuing skirmishes is to develop some sort of standard by which we write notes.

  • It has been noted
  • besides the obvious problem with the ambiguously attributed verb, there is no need to say it has been noted. imagine opening a dictionary and the entry said it has been defined. that is redundant.
  • the name of the mysterious chatter
  • it is fair to assume that the reader has read text leading up to this note. and if not, it is not sufficient to say the mysterious chatter. you would have to say the mysterious chatter who met in the chat room while gina was online.
  • likely a reference
  • the anagram is a literary device and author intent has nothing to do with the validity of asserting a connection.
  • throw the reader a little credit, that they know what lg15 means.
  • At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
  • my wording is better because it does not begin with a prepositional phrase. technically there is nothing wrong with begining a sentence with a prepositional phrase, but for clarity's sake i would favor the phrasing that places the conclusion upfront and the conditional statement at the end.
  • Since Bree's mother both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting, it is widely believed redSUV51 was her. This point was later reinforced by the fact that, in The Devil Speaks, it was shown Bree's mother came to the meeting alone.
  • my phrasing is better because it does not begin with a conjunction.

- platy

Just to point this out: This is the actual polite way to reply - instead of violently cutting up someone else's post without being asked.
Platy said:
*It has been noted
*besides the obvious problem with the ambiguously attributed verb, there is no need to say it has been noted. imagine opening a dictionary and the entry said it has been defined. that is redundant.
It is not redundant, because, as we can see in platy's phrasing, the omission of this introduction implies a certainty about the fact in question. No matter if it is still factually correct, the way platy phrases it implies the Creators had come forward and officially stated the sole purpose and message behind that nick was being an anagram for "Verdus15". And that is just not the case. We have no confirmation. We have simply noted that this is possible.
Platy said:
*the name of the mysterious chatter
*it is fair to assume that the reader has read text leading up to this note. and if not, it is not sufficient to say the mysterious chatter. you would have to say the mysterious chatter who met in the chat room while gina was online.
  1. No, you can not assume somebody has read the page up to that point. Are you telling me you actually think everybody who reads a notes section has always also read the episode's transcript? That's just ridiculous. Users who have seen the episode have already seen when it was posted, who was in it, what was being said and so on. They have no reason to read the entire sidebar and the transcript just to read the information they may have missed - in the notes section.
    To assume that anyone who reads a notes section has read the entire page above it beforehand is plain and simply not realistic.
    In addition, as I have pointed out before, if somebody wants to quote the note, he will quote the note - not the entire transcript and chatlog. Thus, the note has to be understandable on its own.
    On the other hand, one can reasonably that the quote would be made in context - in a forum thread about the chat, for example. Not randomly somewhere in a discussion about pink flip-flops. As such, you can also assume that people are very aware the general topic is Gina's chat - otherwise, what sense would it make to post a note about a participant? (And before you argue, no, with 200 users in chat that night, knowing there was a mysterious chatter does not automatically mean they know it was redSUV51.)
Platy said:
the anagram is a literary device and author intent has nothing to do with the validity of asserting a connection.
At the beginning of the current Iraq war, the US military frequently described their strategy as "Shock and awe", "a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming decisive force, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of power to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.".
"Shock and awe" is also an anagram of "A shack owned" - a pretty accurate description of what the US military was doing.
Platy's way:
"The US military's strategy of 'shock and awe' (an anagram for 'a shack owned') ..."
Ren's way:
"The US military's strategy of 'shock and awe' (which also happens to be an anagram for 'a shack owned') ..."
Leaving out the information that you have no confirmation of intent, implies intent. In this example, your way of phrasing would be 100% correct - it would be an anagram for "a shack owned" - but it also implies that it was an intentional decision by the US government to make it such an anagram. For which you would have no proof.
And the same applies in this case. "redSUV51 is an anagram for Verdus15" alone Is 100% correct. But it implies that you know with certainty that this was the intended meaning. That it wasn't just an accident, or laziness on part of the Creators. For which you have no proof. Especially not since you don't know that E.A. isn't 51, for example. In addition, the full phrase, "redSUV51 is an anagram for Verdus15, a combination reference to Verdus Pharmaceuticals and Bree's YouTube account." provides more unsourced allegations. As my phrasing states, it is likely they are references to Verdus and lonelygirl. But we have no proof for that. As such, removing the uncertainty factors implies a certainty that you simply don't have. It is likely, yes. Which is why my phrasing notes that. It is not certain.
Platy said:
Bree's username lonelygirl15.
*throw the reader a little credit, that they know what lg15 means.
  1. There are many people that joined after the "Bree-Era" and only know lonelygirl15 as the common account under which all characters post their videos - including, for some reason, Porter's Shadow.
  2. We have KM people here, too. You cannot by default assume that somebody who came from Bebo to KateModern to LGPedia is aware that "lonelygirl15" is not just the series title, but actually the YouTube name of the girl whose mother redSUV51 presumably is.
Platy said:
*my wording is better because it does not begin with a prepositional phrase. technically there is nothing wrong with begining a sentence with a prepositional phrase, but for clarity's sake i would favor the phrasing that places the conclusion upfront and the conditional statement at the end.
Rofl. Let us compare the sentences, shall we?
At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
redSUV51 initially tells Gina to go to the meeting, but later switches to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
Now, which should I highlight first? The fact that your conclusion is in the exact same position, with the exact same phrasing as mine, or the fact that the only differences between yours and mine are the placement of "redSUV51" and that you tell the reader what she did before she switched, while I tell him what had changed after the switch?
And before you argue "then mine could stay" now, no, it can't, because my wording is better because it doesn't do this to the notes section:
  • redSUV51 ...
  • redSUV51 ...
  • redSUV51 ...
If you don't see how that just looks bad, you have no business lecturing me about better wording.
Platy said:
*Since Bree's mother both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting, it is widely believed redSUV51 was her. This point was later reinforced by the fact that, in The Devil Speaks, it was shown Bree's mother came to the meeting alone.
*my phrasing is better because it does not begin with a conjunction.
First of all, this is utter bullshit. The reason conjunctions at the beginning of the sentence are discouraged is because a complete sentence should stand on its own, and a conjunction implies dependence on a previous sentence. This is does not apply as the sentence would work just as well if I just switched it around to "It is widely believed redSUV51 was Bree's mother, since she both works at Verdus and was scheduled to attend the meeting". All parts are there, so there is nothing wrong with the sentence.
Secondly, that conjunction only exists in the first place because you insisted the second note must be split. If anyone is to blame for it, it's you.
Thirdly, your third note suffers from the same problem as your previous one: A lack of creativity. Once more, it is "redSUV51 blablablabla". One more, it looks like LGPedia is too stupid to come up with a new way to start a sentence. Not to mention that the focus is not the specific username the person had, but her assumed identity and the reasons for this assumption. In addition, "redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus." simply sounds bumpy. Both the "besides gina" as well as the "chairman of Verdus" specifications are unnecessary and complicating the sentence. The important information is that E.A. was likely the only other person attending the meeting, and that she was connected to Verdus. What her exact job at Verdus is is entirely immaterial to the "Verdus15" connection. In addition, replacing the "Elizabeth"s with "she" or omitting them would also smoothen the sentence considerably.
You prefer
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus."
over
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and is the chairman of Verdus."
or
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person scheduled to attend the meeting and chairman of Verdus."
or
"redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because she is the only other person scheduled to attend the meeting and works at Verdus."
and actually think you're in a position to teach me about phrasing a good note?
Your phrasings each independently lack references. You imply things you have no authority to reply, the phrasing of your individual sentences ranks from questionable to downright bad, and all together, they create an additional worsening effect through the constant repetition of "redSUV51" as the introductory word. As such, they are not fitting the general content standard of LGPedia.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:02, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


why do i continue to entertain you?

you said: It is not redundant, because, as we can see in platy's phrasing, the omission of this introduction implies a certainty about the fact in question. No matter if it is still factually correct, the way platy phrases it implies the Creators had come forward and officially stated the sole purpose and message behind that nick was being an anagram for "Verdus15". And that is just not the case. We have no confirmation. We have simply noted that this is possible.

  • the issue regarding etymology of redsuv51 is not solved by adding it has been noted.

you said: No, you can not assume somebody has read the page up to that point... (blah blah blah)

  • yes i can. in the western world, we read from top to bottom.

you said: At the beginning of the current Iraq war, the US military frequently described their strategy as "Shock and awe"...

  • these conditions are not analogous. rhetorical analysis and literary analysis are not the same thing.

you said: If you don't see how that just looks bad, you have no business lecturing me about better wording.

  • i am arguing for functionality and clarity and you are worried about aesthetic. also, you are always so quick to belittle me.

you said: First of all, this is utter bullshit.

  • nice language. the problem with leading with a note conjunction is more problematic than leading a note with a conjunction. the problem is that a note should lead with the subject. the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...). my notes are conclusion-centric. i begin with redsuv51 every time because that is the subject of the note and likewise, it should be the subject of the sentence. aesthetic and artistic creativity have nothing to do with pedia. if you knew me in my personal life, you would know that artistic creativity is important to me and i would not snuff a valid opportunity to be creative. this is simply not the place.

you said: it looks like LGPedia is too stupid to come up with a new way to start a sentence

  • comments like this make me wonder how old you are. i am twenty five years old. i am a navy veteran and served in operation iraqi freedom. i am currently enrolled and only thirty credits away from attaining a degree in journalism. in my free time, i study philosophy, rhetoric and history. if you were my equal in either real world experience or education, you would know better than to make statements like this.

you said: The important information is that E.A. was likely the only other person attending the meeting, and that she was connected to Verdus.

  • this is true. the sentence can always be reworked but i want redsuv51 to remain the subject. chatroom user redsuv51 is alike to EA in that includes herself in the exclusive meeting and the user name can be linked to verdus. something. i'm sleepy and i have class in the morning. comm law.

regarding: "redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery because Elizabeth is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and Elizabeth is the chairman of Verdus."

  • grammar time. the subject of the sentence is redSUV51. is is the verb. elizabeth avery is the direct object. because acts as a conjunction between the two sentences that complete the thought. to use the pronoun she as the subject of the second sentence would be confusing because it would be unclear if the pronoun is referring to the subject of the direct object of the previous sentence. it is shamelessly clumsy in the name of clarity.
platy said:
*the issue regarding etymology of redsuv51 is not solved by adding it has been noted.
Luckily, I don't pretend it is. I'm just honest enough to admit that I have no actual evidence of the proof. Other than you, who openly admits the etymology is un"solved", but still implies the intention as an anagram is a 100% proven fact.
the it has been noted phrase doesn't do anything for your sentence and you continue to pretend it does - platy
Yes it does. It shows the reader that this was something noted by third parties, and not a confirmed intention by the Creators.
You know...difference between unsourced allegation and confirmed fact? Ring any bells?
platy said:
*yes i can. in the western world, we read from top to bottom.
No you can't. Because, in the western world, we also skip parts we don't want to read. And if somebody is only interested in the notes, he'll gladly scroll down and start reading at "Notes".
In addition, your point fails anyway. Because this is not "the western world" with its outdated hardcopies, this is the World Wide Web. I can simply link to #Notes, and the Notes section is the top.
  • you are free to skip, knowing that you might have to scroll back up. - platy
Yes. I am free, and everybody else is free. Thus, you can not assume everybody has read the entire page.
Of course you know that - otherwise you'd have disputed the link comment.
platy said:
*these conditions are not analogous. rhetorical analysis and literary analysis are not the same thing.
Neither unspecified "conditions" nor the difference between rhetorical analysis and literary analysis are of relevance to my point. Either you continue with "because..." and give proof, or you just stated your personal opinion, and my point stands.
Of course, given that no "conditions" are relevant, since I merely applied what you already did to a different anagram, it's kinda hard for you to argue factually against it.
platy said:
*i am arguing for functionality and clarity and you are worried about aesthetic.
Yes, I am worried about aesthetic, because my notes already included all facts and were clearer than yours before you replaced them with your attempt. I don't have to worry about "functionality and clarity", because I got mine right the first time.
I am not arguing about the "functionality and clarity" of my notes. I am pointing out the lack of functionality, clarity and aesthetic in your notes.
  • you are just being difficult. why i bother to point out your flawed logic is beyond me. - platy
Lacking proof, and a hilarious attempt to sound superior.
platy said:
also, you are always so quick to belittle me.
Noting that somebody who fails at something has no business teaching it to others is no belittlement, it's a basic fact of life.
You wouldn't let somebody who had 10 accidents and lost his license twice teach others how to drive, either.
  • analogies do not make good arguments. analogies are effective only in conveying concepts. - platy
Lacking proof, personal opinion.
platy said:
you said: First of all, this is utter bullshit.
*nice language.
Isn't it?
it is a testament to your stellar arguing skills. - platy
You mean the ones that made you run to Zoey for help?
platy said:
the problem with leading with a note conjunction is more problematic than leading a note with a conjunction. the problem is that a note should lead with the subject. the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...).
Therefore, I did it perfectly right. I should lead with the subject, and did so. Go me.
(Independent from the fact that you destroyed your own point there, it is also completely unfounded in real life. Introductions like "According to recent reports, the something...", "As I noted in a previous post...", "Because of a death in the family..." and so on are a normal part of the English language.)
  • you could say "because of a death in the family, i was sad" or you could say "i was sad because of a death in the family" and you prefer the former while i prefer the latter. your focus is death in the family and my focus is i am sad. the subject remains the same. my sentence is more clear - platy
Lacking proof, personal opinion.
platy said:
my notes are conclusion-centric. i begin with redsuv51 every time because that is the subject of the note and likewise, it should be the subject of the sentence.
  1. Your basis is wrong, again. You, personally, would like to be "redSUV51" the subject of the sentence, and you, personally, are incapable of achieving that in any other way than by placing it right in the beginning. The subject of the third note is not necessarily redSUV51, it can also be Bree's mom. (Bree's mom is redSUV vs. redSUV is Bree's mom.)
  2. Independent from these attempts to pretend I did not adhere to your personal preference of phrasing and your personal preference is The One True Way To Go, in both "It has been noted that 'redSUV51', the name of the mysterious chatter, is an anagram for 'Verdus15'," as well as "At the end of the chat, redSUV51 switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.", redSUV51 is still the subject. What is an anagram for Verdus15? redSUV51, the name of the mysterious chatter. Who switches from telling Gina to go to the meeting to telling her to come to the meeting? redSUV51.
If you want to give grammar lections, make sure you're actually capable of finding it in a sentence.
  • when have i failed to find the subject? - platy
For anyone who can read, it is very clear "it" refers to "grammar" (the word "subject" not even existing), the sentence implying that you are incapable of finding "grammar", i.e. grammatical structures as a whole, in the sentence.
In addition, "the subject of your note is always either user-centric (it has been noted by somebody...) or condition-centric (because Bree's mother both works at Verdus...)." followed by "i begin with redsuv51 every time because that is the subject of the note" clearly expresses that you think the beginning of my sentence is automatically my subject - which a) simply wrong on any account, and b) shows that you fail to find the subject of a sentence.
Also, didn't work.
I still saw that you didn't contest your basis is wrong or that my subject is still correctly chosen, instead trying to divert to a minor ending point.
In addition, according to your phrasing, redSUV51 is the conclusion of your statements.
redSUV51 initially tells Gina to go to the meeting, but later switches to come to the meeting, implying s/he will be there.
Now explain to me how redSUV51 is the conclusion in that sentence. I think the conclusion is "redSUV51's choice of words implies s/he will be at the meeting.". But hey, that's just me, and apparently, you're the Grandmaster of Grammar...
Oh look...he can't!
platy said:
aesthetic and artistic creativity have nothing to do with pedia. if you knew me in my personal life, you would know that artistic creativity is important to me and i would not snuff a valid opportunity to be creative. this is simply not the place.
Yeah, I'm sure that's why we have formatting guides, cleanup templates, Zoey invests countless hours in image polishing, we do redesigns, need I go on?
Basic, everyday pedia life disproves this allegation. LGPedia needs to look good. That's not even up for discussion. Factual accuracy is more important than how it looks, but given that my notes included more information than yours, were more accurate, and looked better, that doesn't apply, either.
But if that is truly your opinion, I'd love to see you to go tell Zoey that. XD
  • clarity of poetry? which is more important? - platy
Cheap attempt at diversion. I have never talked of poetry, and I have pointed out that my notes have at least the same, if not more clarity than yours.
platy said:
*comments like this make me wonder how old you are. i am twenty five years old. i am a navy veteran and served in operation iraqi freedom. i am currently enrolled and only thirty credits away from attaining a degree in journalism. in my free time, i study philosophy, rhetoric and history. if you were my equal in either real world experience or education, you would know better than to make statements like this.
I don't know what's funnier - your oh-so-rhetoric attempt of diversion, or the ridiculous attempt to belittle me.
If you actually had studies rhetoric, then you'd know that both mine and your personal background are immaterial to this discussion. What's important are the facts. And fact is, from the statements you've made so far in your post, you have no idea of the English language in everyday life and are incapable of locating a subject in a sentence - during an attempt on grammar lecture, nonetheless.
  • that was not an attempt to belittle you. i was reminding you that you should know better than to make personal attacks. further, personal background, merits and credentials have everything to do with rhetoric. - platy
On what basis are you trying to tell me I "should know better"? Your imaginary skills?
And I will take your insistence that personal background has any relevance to factual accuracy as proof that you truly didn't study rhetoric.
platy said:
*this is true. the sentence can always be reworked but i want redsuv51 to remain the subject. chatroom user redsuv51 is alike to EA in that includes herself in the exclusive meeting and the user name can be linked to verdus. something. i'm sleepy and i have class in the morning. comm law.
Thank you. "the sentence can always be reworked but i want redsuv51 to remain the subject."
The fact that you want it does not make it better, the best, or the only solution. It just makes it your personal opinion.
i want it because it is better - platy
Lacking proof, personal opinion.
platy said:
:*grammar time. the subject of the sentence is redSUV51. is is the verb. elizabeth avery is the direct object. because acts as a conjunction between the two sentences that complete the thought. to use the pronoun she as the subject of the second sentence would be confusing because it would be unclear if the pronoun is referring to the subject of the direct object of the previous sentence. it is shamelessly clumsy in the name of clarity.
errrrrrrrrrm, no.
Yes, you can, on theoretical level, claim that, technically, "she" might refer to redSUV51.
But in reality, it is very clear "she" refers to Elizabeth simply because of the "because". The first sentence introduces the theory that redSUV51 is E.A. The second sentence explains why redSUV51 is thought to be her. Why is redSUV51 is widely believed to be Elizabeth Avery? Because she is the only other person besides Gina that is scheduled to attend the meeting and she is the chairman of Verdus.
In addition, I was just showing the plethora of ways your sentence could've been improved. As I have proven in public, I would not have phrased it that way anyway.
  • you have not proven anything. - platy
And you wonder why I question your intelligence.
I have very much proven that I wouldn't phrase it that way anyway......by not phrasing it that way in the first place.
And for someone so skilled, so studied and oh so great in rhetoric, you sure show a grave lack of politeness. Quit writing around in my replies. If you want to reply, add a reply. Don't modify mine. We have a quote template for a reason.
Fourth level is mine.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Two Cents

Okay -- I've been reading the posts that have vaguely been on-topic and I just want to say to everyone involved: Seriously, calm . . . down. I'm all for civil discussions and such (and this one hasn't been too crazy yet), but these things have pratically become almost daily "treats" here at the LGPedia and discussions really need to stop reaching the point of bickering to where it's essentially ridiculous. I personally don't care who is right in the end, I'm just asking everyone to take a deep breath and relax a bit.

That said, reading through the different versions of the notes being discussed, here's my two cents: Note 1) The original version It has been noted that "redSUV51", the name of the mysterious chatter, is an anagram for "Verdus15", likely a reference both to Verdus Pharmaceuticals, where Bree's mother works, as well as to Bree's username lonelygirl15. is not overly redundant and it isn't terribly gramatically wrong. If anything, remove the words "likely a" and just say "refrences to both" as it IS clear that if the anagram is a reference to anything it WOULD be Verdus and lg15.
As for Note 2), IMO, it's just not significant enough to even note, it's that obvious from the video/chat. Finally, I think Note 3) could be better said as The theory that Elizabeth Avery was redSUV51 was later reinforced in the video The Devil Speaks, where she met Gina at the park alone.
alrighty then -- that's my two shinny pennies on the matter :) --Pheon 02:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Look, there's no reason for anyone to take any of this personally. If someone doesn't like your note or disagrees with you or whatever, it's not an attack against you. If people just keep that in mind, I think we would avoid a lot of the problems we have here. I'm not pointing out anything specific here, but (like Pheon said) it looks like it's headed that direction. So let's keep it from going there, okay? Thanks.--Jonpro 02:41, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Jon, I don't think he's personally attacking me, and even if he was, I wouldn't care. I just think his notes sound terrible, and I don't see why we have to replace perfectly fine sounding, accurate notes with bumpy, repetitive, incomplete versions just because he starts an edit war instead of proving his are better in a discussion.
Pheon, I consider the second note important because, in the past, henchmen have tried to urge girls to take actions for their masters. Gemma tried to give advice and nudge Bree in the right direction in the name of OpAphid, Daniel did the same when he was kidnapped, Claire tried to get to Emma in Porter's name - it wouldn't have been a first that someone else tries to do the convincing. The sudden change in phrasing gave a strong clue that it was not just another Hymn of One guy going "Do the ceremony!", but actually E.A. urging her to come. In addition, "go to the meeting" implies the speaker is a third person that knows about the meeting, which, in turn, strongly indicates a trap, whereas E.A. personally coming to chat supports the assumption she would be alone.
iow, it does make a difference which phrasing is chosen, and, as such, a sudden change in phrasing is, at least in my opinion, noteworthy.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now. the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out. renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence. i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks. i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right. i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego. i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another. flip a coin if you have to. - platy

platy said:
i have made mistakes in the past, many of which are similar to the mistakes that renegade is making now.
Generic phrasing in an attempt to discredit. Which mistakes?
keep reading
Nice try, but the rest of your post talks about what an evil, evil person I am, with no relation or reference to this part of your post. So, are you going to at least try to prove your ridiculous allegations, or just admit that that was a bad attempt to talk me down?
platy said:
the difference is, i have fessed up to them when i have been called out.
Unsourced.
  • i'll source myself.
Fine - then do so. Links?
platy said:
renegade has in the past, threatened to ban me from pedia, used inappropriate language and personally attacked my intelligence.
I have threatened to banned you because you spammed the pedia. Something you did again by ignoring general procedures and insisting on forcing a disputed edit on the page in an edit war.
  • i could claim the same against you, that you are spamming the edit page by reverting MY edits. why are you edits more valuable than mine. further, what administrative rights do you have to threaten users with administrative action?
No, you couldn't. You changed, I disputed your change. That is not spam, that is normal procedure. Had you gone to discussion immediately, everything would've been fine. Hell, I even showed the courtesy to ignore the fact that you ignored procedure and edit-war'd your revision back in, reverted, and initiated a discussion myself. Instead of going with the discussion and waiting for the outcome, you tried to force your revision in again.
This is not about my revision being more "valuable" than yours. This is about any original revision being the basis on which changes are discussed. That has nothing to do with whose revision the original is.
And, once more, you are lying and you try to paint an evil picture of me by implying I randomly threaten users with "administrative action". How about you skip the propaganda part and actually source your allegations? Link us. Show us these "users" which I allegedly threaten with "administrative action".
The fact that I threatened to ban you is not, in itself, an illegitimate act of aggression. If anything, you could attack my reasoning for threatening to ban you.
  • it is an act of aggression. you might as well flag my talk page with stfu
You're trying to evade the point - again. The fact that I threatened to ban you is not, in itself, an illegitimate act of aggression. If anything, you could attack my reasoning for threatening to ban you. (All of that still ignoring that you are lying.)
However, given that you are lying anyway, that's irrelevant anyway.
In addition, I find it rather hilarious that you are trying to discredit me, while both your talk page as well as Talk:Mexican Mating Machine show quite clearly that this is not the first time you're trying to pull this exact thing, and that you're constantly clashing with the administration over these matters.
  • i am not constantly clashing with anybody but you.
You are not constantly engaging in long discussions with anybody but me - mostly because you previously clashed mostly with administrators.
platy said:
i ask only that credit is given to my sound logic and clear writing and also that the community observes renegade's never ending quest to pwn me with analogies, red herrings and personal attacks.
Invalid. Lacks proof my analogies are not relevant, lacks proof of red herrings and fails to show any "personal attacks".
  • analogies have no place in arguments. when i argue against the it has been noted phrase, dodge the issue. and you told me that i have no grasp on the english language. what proof do i need?
Proof that ridiculous claims like "analogies have no place in arguments" are true in any way, shape or form.
platy said:
i am not proud of our pissing contest, but i cannot step down when i feel that i am right.
And that justifies an editing war instead of following common procedure and courtesy?
so let me get it strait... if there is any confusion about your phrasing, it should remain at your phrasing until you admit that you are wrong. which is never? who decides in the end?
No. It should remain the original phrasing until the majority decides it should be changed. If it was as obvious as you pretend it is, this discussion would never have happened.
Instead, you're the only one advocating your phrasing, while only minor alterations of my phrasing have been proposed. Funny, isn't it?
platy said:
i have outlined how renegade's writing could be stronger and more direct and he returns with a fractured ego.
Untrue and unsourced. In fact, I have shown up multiple times how your writing is lacking in style, as well as how my notes are more accurate.
look above. look below. you display your ego every time you place an editorial adverb in front of your verbs that describe my actions.
Then it should be easy to take any given sentence and show that. So why are you still refusing to show proof?


platy said:
i regret putting you on the spot Zoey, but you must decide one way or another. flip a coin if you have to.
Pathetic attempt to get your will without having to actually prove your notes are the better choice.
i would never attach such an adverb to your actions. you've called me pathetic and feeble and stupid before and you keep crying untrue and unsourced!
Well, if you actually sourced your allegations for a change, I'd have no reason to note the lack of source and proof.
In addition, learn to use the preview button. Not only are you spamming recent changes and generated dozens of useless revisions, but not knowing when you're done, or being conflicted by the next sentence of your reply is also extremely annoying for anyone else using a page.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

it is a personal attack when you editorialize your verbs with colorful adverbs such as pathetic and feeble and stupid. it not a personal attack but a fact (i should hope it is a fact) that you should know better. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have the education and discipline to formulate a decent argument but you give me no reason to believe.

That attempt to get Zoey to decide arbitrarily instead of reading the discussion was pathetic. There simply exists no other word to describe it. You keep going reply after reply with unsourced allegations and ridiculous claims, your sole arguments seem to be that you (allegedly) studied rhetoric, and thus, you're automatically right, and that I'm a bad, bad man and shouldn't even be talking.
I have pointed out how badly phrased your notes are. I have pointed out how your attempts to do the same with mine fail and are not based in reality. Instead of tackling my arguments, you keep screaming my methods are invalid without a glimpse of proof for these claims.
If you actually had studied rhetoric and could actually prove your notes are far superior to mine, then your first post should have utterly destroyed me. Instead, you're down to a point where you try to discredit me personally, try to force your own, personal discussion rules upon me, question the validity of the discussion as a whole, and try to get others to quickly decide a "winner" before I post a reply.
If you had as much skill in this as you would like us to believe, this discussion would long be over. Because I can't argue against facts. Alas, no matter how much you claim to have studied this and that I should know better than to argue against you, factual evidence is not your strong side so far.
You keep insisting I'm doing it all wrong, that I'm just insulting you, that I have no idea, and so on. How about you just do it right, for once? Show your magical Super Rhetoric Man skills. Drop the whole "Renegade is evil" and "Help me Zoey" angles and just concentrate on the facts. Show us some proof instead of yet another round of "omgomgomg Ren is so evil and has no idea! I'm right! I studied this!".
Because, if you were as good as you pretend to be, I would automatically fail at proving you wrong, and everyone else would agree with you.
Oh, and btw - the fact that your replies are practically invisible within other replies is another reason we don't practise the impolite style. But I guess we've already seen you don't care about that...
Third level is mine.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

further proposal for structure

i suggest that the notes section be removed and replaced with a new system. from now on, episode pages should contain:

a) script
b) links to separate pages, containing additional text, such as chat room transcript and forum entries.
c) literary devices (such as foreshadowing, etymology and symbolism... and the anagram)
d) reoccuring themes (such as feminism, inebriated and relationships
e) theories (such as redsuv51 = EA)
- platy

in all fairness, the notes concerning the chat should be moved to the page that has already been created and is dedicated to the chat - platy

There is nothing justifying such an administrative effort, especially since everybody but platy is fine with the current structure, and in most cases, it's only one note on each topic anyway - there's no use creating an entire subpage for one line.
Also, you forgot a subpage for userboxes.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
  • get off my case. let the community speak for themselves. the more you talk the more reason i have to believe that it is you that should be banned. not me. - platy
Please, just calm down. Geez. Ren is part of the community too and everyone has an equal opportunity to respond. And I agree that we don't need an elaborate structure for notes. Things look fine as they are, and the phrasing of the note can indicate what type of note it is.--Jonpro 14:30, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
it might clear up some issues and provide opportunity for embellishment. have you seen lostpedia? - platy