Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I feel a little grumpy sbout your revert of my work on reasoning. There were reasons for every single change I made. My work as an academic includes lecturing on the topic, I believe this page is important, and I am willing to use some of the little spare time I have to try removing inaccuracies in wikipedia. I do not particularly feel like justifying my every change, but if you need them to be justified to understand the motivation behind them, I will. If you want references to introductory texts to back these claims up, let me know and I will provide them. However, I saw most of this first passage as pretty much common knowledge, stated primarily to set the scene for the article itself. Apart from accuracy, my second primary motivation was to remove unecssarily complicated language and pointless links from the passage. See the discussion on the wiwkiproject:philosophy talk page about this. There is no point in including a rarely used complicated term when a few words can explain the idea as clearly. Please let us not start a revert war over this. Explain exactly what you object to about my changes here, and if your reasoning is convincing I will be happy to accept the changes.Anarchia21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
