By Tal Fortgang '17 April 2, There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. The phrase, handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness, and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung. But I do condemn them for diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive. Even that is too extreme.
It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community. Some discussions are born lame; some achieve lameness; some have lameness thrust upon them.
Upon coming across a discussion that is borderline lame, some Wikipedians may be tempted to go do something useful. This is a big mistake. Left to its own devices, the discussion might inadvertently become useful.
What's the fun in that? It is essential that as many editors as possible chime in, not adding to the discussion at hand, but merely commenting how lame it is and what a big waste of time it is.
See Self-fulfilling prophecyPositive feedbackand Exponential growth. Merely stating the discussion is lame is frequently not sufficient; every opposing statement must be denied with increasingly vehement assertions of the lameness.
While at first blush, wasting time whining about what a waste of time something is may seem illogical, the inherent irony just magnifies the lameness.
An additional step to increase lameness is to include repeated links to this essay, which is WP: The best way to set about a lame edit war is to change a large number of articles based on your interpretation of minutiae in the manual of style.
If this does not work, try changing the MOS itself; that always works. Guidelines on how to add an entry to this guide If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war.
Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added: Note that pithy quotes on talk pages may be suitable for Wikipedia: It should truly be amongst the lamest edit wars.
Not just garden-variety lame.
Unless a participant is banned for their part in the edit war, do not give the names of participants or link to their userpages. People have lapses in judgment, and some end up edit warring; they shouldn't, however, be stuck with that for the rest of their on-wiki careers for no reason.Get everything you need to know about The Grandmother in A Good Man is Hard to Find.
Analysis, related quotes, timeline. The character of The Grandmother in A Good Man is Hard to Find from LitCharts | The creators of SparkNotes. Good girls don't. But she does. Always Female due to the Double Standard, the Good Bad Girl is less chaste than her fellow female vetconnexx.com since her figure developed, boys have been making passes at her — and she's been accepting some.
Note that having Yiddish as a Second Language is a clue but is not conclusive. As Lenny Bruce said, all New Yorkers are at least a little Jewish. Having a "Jewish" name ending in -berg, -stein or the like is also evidence but not proof.
These names are actually just German names that many Ashkenazi Jews took when required to adopt some type of surname. Good Man Is Hard to Find - Character Analysis Essay “Good Man is Hard to Find” Character Analysis.
In “Good Man is Hard to Find” the main character of the story is a grandmother. At first she seems to be a usual grandmother who still thinks that her son is a little boy and he has to do what she wants him, even thought he is a grown up man.
INTRODUCTION. In , when the author of the essays here assembled was elected professor of political and social science in Yale College, he was, to use his own words, “a young and untried man.” He was selected for his position, not as a specialist, but because he was what he was.
Someone in those days must have been an excellent judge of men. The old problems, such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of .