Discussion Main / Fanfare

Similar is still not the same. I can't properly explain the difference, which is why "it is hard to quantify" is in the description.

Plus how could you read my last history comment as rude? I was just stating that one didn't lead to another as the difference. I would have had to call you a name, or something along those lines, to be rude. As short explanation is not rude in and of itself.

"So stop assuming it is" is both a) rude, and b) making several assumptions about what I am thinking. There are lots of ways to be rude other than calling people names, and one of them is giving orders. Also, actually, I said it is an "impolite tone"... which continues to be true :) you could ask exactly the same question without implying you are condescending to an ignorant worm who doesn't understand the concept of rudeness...

"It should sound kingly, like it's for a king" is a very Shaped Like Itself definition. Hard to quantify? Try, anyway. (That is, if you know what the "instills a feeling of majesty" requirement is even supposed to mean.)

You can look up "stirring", "uplifting" and "majestic" in the dictionary. You shouldn't have to just rely on me to tell you.

And that is not being shaped like itself (did we ever fix that trope anyway?). It's to note that the very reason for being majestic is because it is heralding people who are to be seen as majestic themselves. How could you see that concept as just the terms being recursive in the way you implied?

""So stop assuming it is" is both a) rude, and b) making several assumptions about what I am thinking. There are lots of ways to be rude other than calling people names, and one of them is giving orders."

Okay, but that comment came after another comment, so it looked like you were replying to the other one.

But I still can insist you stop thinking of it that way, as it just creates a mindset that makes it harder to grasp that they are different.

"You can look up "stirring", "uplifting" and "majestic" in the dictionary. You shouldn't have to just rely on me to tell you."

Articles should be clear without readers having to consult another reference. Editors maybe should, though: consulting a thesaurus, you might find that, while those words are not synonymous, they share many synonyms (similar by ~1 degree of separation). It is not crazy to suggest that the two similar criteria should be better-differentiated / better-defined, nor is "nuh-uh, it's not unclear to me" a valid argument against such a suggestion.

"I can't properly explain the difference, which is why "it is hard to quantify" is in the description."

Yes. I think that is bad. "Definition: it's hard to define..." is a very poor definition.

PS: "You shouldn't have to just rely on me to tell you."... condescending, again...

"Articles should be clear without readers having to consult another reference."

The dictionary is not "another reference". If you don't know what some words mean, you really should look them up, or you won't understand the trope. It's not as though we're using Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness in this article.

"condescending, again"

That might be that, but it stems from annoyance that you are acting like I'm supposed to be the dictionary for you, when the context of the words are about their meanings, not some kind of difference that requires some kind of expert (even a English language, or linguistics expert). I did put it a bit too harshly, but you need to realize that when asking what the differences between words are, the dictionary usually is the best place to look.

Consider the possibility, just for a moment, that you're wrong.

(That is, wrong about many things, but in particular, about what I'm saying and what, if anything, you should be annoyed at. Repeat:)

"Stirring", "uplifting", and "majestic" are not synonymous, but they share many synonyms (similar by ~1 degree of separation). It is not crazy to suggest that the two similar criteria should be better-differentiated / better-defined, nor is "nuh-uh, it's not unclear to me" a valid argument against such a suggestion.

I would totally grab a dictionary and a thesaurus and make this change myself, but I don't know what the intended meanings are supposed to be.

I'm wrong that it's important to look up words in the dictionary if you don't know how they are different?

Or that I'm wrong to stating the reason I came across as rude in that particular reply?

Something tells me you didn't actually read what I wrote, and are just assuming I'm not listening to you, when I clearly responded, and even partially admitted to, your points.

EDIT: That was to the first reply you made, just above this, not the second.

"That is, wrong about many things, but in particular, about what I'm saying and what, if anything, you should be annoyed at."

That isn't particular, and even a broad "many things" comment is fallacious, as it assumes my assurance in this one point means I can't admit I'm wrong in other things. Certainty of a fact is not the same as belief in never being wrong.

"Something tells me you didn't actually read what I wrote, and are just assuming I'm not listening to you, when I clearly responded, and even partially admitted to, your points."

Consider the possibility that... wait...

I edited that comment (on the chance you didn't notice it before, and if you did, then nevermind).

Some other things you're wrong about, which may or may not qualify as 'many':

You understand the problem.

If you think a suggestion is unreasonable, it is, period.

Your annoyance is justified.

It is appropriate for long-time contributors to be "harsh" towards relatively newer contributors.

This is about the appropriate way to phrase point #3. You're just arguing ad hominem.

Present a valid point, and I will acknowledge it. But don't expect me to spell out the meanings of those words and then blame me for pointing out you need to do it yourself. This isn't a person to person argument. You have plenty of time to do research.

I cut out the extraneous material from the description. Let's just leave it alone now, hmm?

"This is about the appropriate way to phrase point #3"

"What was World War I about?" "It was about fighting."

I give up. By the way, that is not at all what ad hominem means, and having relevant concerns dismissed like that is both insulting and hilarious.