Talk:Church-of-Englandism

If there were justice, people would use the orthographic styling of "Church-of-England-ism" rather than "Church-of-Englandism". Alas, that's justice for you, and for all (which is to say, none). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Quercus solaris: Language is based on culture, sharing, and development, and not on "what Quercus wants". But thanks for the input. Equinox ◑ 02:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

At least you're making up for it by adding entire paragraphs of wank on every harmless medical term. It will require a special AI bot to reduce the harm you have caused to this project. Equinox ◑ 02:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wow dude, the tongue was firmly in cheek on my comment above, which should have been obvious. It was just a good-natured albeit perhaps (apparently) overly dry chuckle and nothing more. Meanwhile, though, would you care to lecture me on the epistemology of language, or to have some sort of grotesquely overly angry reaction to something that totally doesn't warrant it? Or perhaps to point to specific examples of the other-than-99.8% of my live edits that allegedly need reverting but somehow haven't been reverted yet, nor complained about by anyone except you? I know you think that you're a "PRETTY BIG DEAL" at Wiktionary (in all caps, no less), but really who gives an F anyway? I know I'm not any kind of big deal at Wiktionary and I don't even care. I'm not so sure about priding oneself on the fact that nobody wants one around. Good luck with that albatross. If you're going to tilt at windmills about the horrific harm that I'm allegedly causing at Wiktionary, you'll probably have to start giving better-reasoned examples than the 0.2% of my edits that you happened to hate and that I already apologized for and already solved by creating a special holding pen for so that no one has to see them in the live content. Here's a challenge: besides that outlier handful of a dozen or so (out of nine thousand), which of my edits needs reverting, and specifically why? Quercus solaris (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you ever think about writing only the important things, and leaving out the 99% that is just noise? Your comment above is just the perfect example! Equinox ◑ 04:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll make this so short that even you can read it. AGAIN, besides the small handful of cherry picked outliers that you already attacked and were already fixed, which of the nine thousand edits is too long and hasn't already been addressed yet? You're a perfect example of something, for sure. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Corollary: People who mistakenly perceive alleged 99% noise in a channel that is 99.8% signal and 0.2% noise obviously have especial difficulties with accurately differentiating signal from noise. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't take it personally. Over time, people will realise that your self-indulgent fart-smelling etymology notes are not necessary, and they will be removed. That might be long after both of us are dead. Don't hate me for it. You're cool. I love you. Equinox ◑ 04:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which ones? Besides the one that you rightfully RfC-tagged and I promptly and rightfully cleaned up by trimming in half? Until you can answer that question, your claim remains just plain incorrect. Your line of complaint is, in the true figurative sense that people earnestly mean when they say "tilting at windmills", railing at phantoms that don't exist. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply