I would love to engage on the topics I am staking any claim to on these pages.
Roslyn (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"Integrity" quite simply has nothing to do with being a patriot. Compare with any of half-a-dozen widespread English dictionaries and widespread uses of the word to describe people without much integrity on Google Books. You can't make up a definition based on how you view the word; you need to look at how it's actually used, and our current definition does a better job of describing that. (PS: If you wish to respond, please respond here. I am watching this page.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
a reply elsewhere
I'm commenting here per your request on my talkpage that I do so, but only to say that my complete reply is on that page; please continue discussion there to keep it all in one place so people can read it.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC), edited 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another way to think about this: think about people's opinions of their religions. A committed Christian might want to edit Christianity to add "the best religion", etc.; so might a Hindu want to edit Hinduism. These are not neutral definitions, but personal opinions. A dictionary says what things are, not what they are subjectively like. Some people are for patriotism, and some are against it. That's not our business to describe. (P.S. Your view also seems to be US-centric, whereas we work in all international varieties of English.) Equinox ◑ 11:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Roslyn (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)I think that is many of the issues here. I am Canadian, and am well aware of many's twisted view but oldenough to know better, I went searching for the original, then distilled it to what ANY Patriot yould be, Unless they exressly chose to violate the term. The one I offered applird to anycountry not mired in moral or social terpitude.
Without prejudice, I should like to appeal this block on the following grounds.
I appear to be the only person in this discussion not having a personal stake in any way, who has actually done the research, detailed on my talk page, to arrive at the conclusion I did.
I'm not the one being told that I have bias, that it is like religion, or that someone simply does not like Americans and therefore objects to my definition, which is notably the only one lacking in bias, applies universally to any country, and might just be a good one to go by.
-- This e-mail was sent by Roslyn to Msh210 by the "E-mail user" function at Wiktionary.
- If enough people tell someone to stop and revert him, he's obviously doing something wrong. He should talk to people, look around the site, figure out the mores. If he persists in the thing people reverted and told him to stop, he gets blocked from doing it again. Since, in your case, the only purpose of your account is to make that edit, there's no loss in blocking you indefinitely.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not experienced with the way topics are archived or otherwise edited/moved from one's talk page, and yours obviously has a great deal of activity as well.
Would it be possible for you to point me to where I can find my comment concerning the Patriot topic and your response on your page, not the one you subsequently made on mine (and to be clear, identified it as a second, different post. I am not implying anything deceptive here).
I have a screencap I grabbed just to have handy, as there were so many elements of your responses demonstrated a variety of areas I had intended to address, but I am instead wanting to simply be able to link to the entire exchange easily in a single document witb the appropriate hyperlinks, rather than a collection of bookmarks or other less coherent format to which I can more easily direct anyone curious?
Thank you, Roslyn
(I will comment on one of the ways in which you were slightly far from shore, as it is just a matter between us, not related to the topic. I never said I made my account solely to make that single attempt to properly express the term as it applies to my single alternate branch one root in what is otherwise exactly what... You are German? If I am mistaken, it might explain your missing just how badly you may have undermined your credibility where that term is concerned.
In any event I did make the account to offer a different perspective, having I don't even remember why noticed the entry containing the reference to zealotry, On the one hand I was under the impression that multiple definitions were allowed, as there were already at least two there I believe, and also because the use of that word made that attempt rather difficult to reconcile with being essentially the opposite of the notion.
Not saying that mine must have been left unquestioned of course. As I said, I welcomed it, given how pleased I was with having brought together the three or four different elements of what I had wished to express and were, with the single word taking another of its own root's ... Well, it passed the accepted Canadian (and I am) model for American vs. Canadian multiculturalism, while the Canadian one is comfortably able to sit word for word and if not to the extreme to which it is a bit difficult to imagine a European in that particular region missing it without discrediting themself completely, not to mention the repeated references to religion, and zealotry making it increasingly obvious that there had been some disconnect, because it had completely left the topic.
Except in the one, not religious per se though it will be couched in a certain formative influence on the nation which was very, very much an influence on the entire nation's, ah... Well, I think of Muhammad Ali when I think of an American who stands perhaps unique, certainly no less than a Gandhi in his representing the best in a... But, that is an impossible bar to clear. But another who fits the same ideal, and is in fact pretty much it, would be Theodore Roosevelt. I didn't post my effort until I'd taken advantage of having a friend be post graduate of the Georgetown University Democracy and Government progrsm, which is one of the ones Americans accord the most weight, and he was moved to tears. And while this is entirely anecdotal (although he has made himself entirely willing to weigh in should it ever be helpful (if only in showing I am not bullshitting of course), but it sort of started a really interesting discussion that, in essence, boiled down to me being shocked that a very significant (to the point of positively baffling) little matter of my, in writing it because the existing one was nor at all representative of the real thing, of which this vert man was also entirely if more gently seated, letting me know I'd just added an entirely somehow unexpressed part of what exactly that ideal was drawnn from. Of course Americans don't speak Dutch as a rule any more. Even more or less forgotten about it.
So I said I made the account to post that. I never said nor implied that I waa not just getting warmed up for some really likely active discussions based on whatever came from this, and it would bave been Wiktionary's because I hadn't yet finished being surprised to notice that I also hgappened tp have been working on trying to express something unrelated but elusively widely observed in a particular context when, pausing to cheeck the specific wording of the basic concept of "reason" as per Plato, Socrates and on, I was utterly shocked.
Check Wikipedia, topic Logos (greek term) and see that someone actually came before them to the extent of coining the term? But if is very slippery there as to whether he was just talking or THE ORIGIN. Well, I can answer that with such total recognition that ( had seen it was exactly the thing I was struggling to express, in a context that makes him in fact somewhere up there with Plato and company. And I will be seeing, I hope, if Harvard, which is of course even in Europe recognized as without peer in this field Iif anywhere else was, I would have chosen, say, Oxford instead. I know when I may be not as to the very core that, as far as I am getting some eyes on it, and all, because who knows? If they accord it some merit, that amount is mine. Unless of course they agree I nailed it.
in which c
I'm sorry, but you were both antagonistic and completely making a very complete and thoroughly helpful example of what keeps wiki as is being very helpful for a sort of "what's different here, and is it new ideas or the complete failure to even recognize the number and variety of ways your response and attitude were the worst caricature of the little fiefdoms and bullying/censor image, but that is something someone, might, with a great deal of... Well, not when you had no idea that you did demonstrate, with nothing but the words you typed, what I am confident I would be able to have move from very, vert borderline libel to winning due to everything I hope this will mean to what I was and am trying to express when I tripped over the nice Greek gentleman. All that is gorgeous but not actually what I am working passionately at. But it does really kick my own into the stratosphere as being essentially in the core of what the Greeks defined as being inherently part of the fail button for being rational. Not understanding what you are sating and/or expressing what you are observing with the correct language, but a total failure to have it mean what it should. The latter is everywhere, of course, but I have one big one I'm gnawing at and I can use all the help I can get, since it's got to not just be recognized, that'x already old news.
It's got to be so convincing and totally appalling that leads to where I got started. Michelangelo did see it and see the same way people shrug it off, but he KNEW the truth of how vile by, to be wrapping up, being MICHELANGELO in the middle of it.
So he didn't exactly fail to leave me a LOT to offer some possible new insight (I hope so obviously!! But that can be fort generations if need be. I'm just collecting what I can from the utter mess the Vatican has made that they seem not to realize, and I am likely only going to get to show you how I can take apart a total lack of noticing the moment you died, even if the actual event hasn't even finished being that one variable.a bully, a censor, and you are totally out of your depth. And that'x before I mention again that one country over is a nation FAMOUS for it's definition of patriotism so specific you cannot miss it... Since it is right there, except the one shift from integrate to integrity which you apparently/ don't recognize as being very much the same shift that Canada and America use as a comparison of their approach to multiculturalism, which is BANG the difference between them.
Also, if one were to examine your approach and the sentiments expressed, this concept is that one must maintain an ideal WORTH your loyalty -as someone who embraces the country's ,.. This is where you missed the difference between Americans as they so so often are, and America as laid down and represented at its best. A patriot both tries to embody that best, but also go keep it that way in essence and in practice.
And as bloody far from it as they are now, if that thing that trumps all there gets pointed in the right direction, America as it is defined as being the only America that can't get its citizens shooting up the whole government (extreme, revolution) without actually not being incorruptible by design. They have to MAINTAIN the thing and didn't, but their constitution and bill of rights, with checks and balances properly aligned, is pretty much the perfect instrument of real democracy to the extent that no one else gets to even have a chance. It is literally unbreakable. If the people live up them And they want to, same as anyone wants to be proud of. But they are in one hell of a mess.
On the other hand a zealot neither questions nor budges from his... lack of thinking, just obeying. Like religion. You've been sitting on that land mine the whole time jumping on it. I tried to point it out in my last post before you totally shit the bed.
I am not interested in that sort of volatile environment, since I seem to be having some unexpectedly exclusive ones perhaps opening? If so I may well BE the next ... You quoted as being... and you have no idea. I'm sorry. But I sae you pulling the same elsewhere, and you're certainly not alone.
But you lack everything that the position is defined by to the extent that I doubt you even recognize where your arument is also written right in the language itself as being either stupid or deliberately trying to use a public source like that to ...
I know they shat themselves go an incredibly damaging extent, but maybe I can take three really, really potent sources of what may end up being a real eye opener. And they'll have no one to blame because they are as corrupt as you were completely out of line as an editor, as being bigoted (by your own admission. You do in fact acknowledge it the second reply, but I's like the link rather than a screencap you can't even contest is your words, please. I am not being in any way upset. I want to make an example (without commenting on whether my entry is in any way [--], merely whether I am in fact using the requisite faculties for it to qualify as being in any way not disqualifying itself from being in any way not 1. the bigoted censor also being the author of the current definition, which itself is bot only by your own admission slanted by your personal feelings about the topic (which, I might add, if you ARE German, back up a bit and take this with the spirit intended: I am well aware how deeply this would be ruinous if so and that I am certain you are in fact completely unaware until nowl; You ate NOT that, but you are
-- This email was sent by Roslyn to Msh210 by the "Email user" function at Wiktionary.