I can't help thinking that if people had to read a 48 page research paper before signing a petition, there would be a lot fewer signatures.
I'm okay with that. The petition is only one of several avenues I'm exploring for bringing Hasbro's hurtful content to a wider audience.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, petitions generally rely on knee-jerk emotional responses in order to gain signatures. It's why they are not actually a good reflection of popular opinion.
Hi Paul, this sounds close in tonality to one of the [+] parameters I requested that folks refrain from:
NEGATIVE: "Petitions never work."
While you did include the hedging word "generally", the general tone of your comment points to an implication that the Petition is a "knee-jerk emotional response" and "not a good reflection of popular opinion."
I acknowledge that, since you said the word "generally", that technically you weren't specifically referring to this petition. But my [+] parameter, as stated (see above), includes negative statements about petitions in general.
I hear Micky Mouse reads everything though.
Could you explain this reference?
Paul, this statement of yours does not respect the [+] parameters I requested for this thread. The article you linked to is about how a publisher literally "re-wrote" the text of a Dahl book. When my petition is explicitly not about re-writing the text of GAZ10. (Yeah, I know that on the anti-thread, folks have, for their purposes, idiosyncratically self-defined the English word "re-write" to also include my proposed additive educational+fictive reframing bundle PDF, but I cannot help their bad faith.)
Here is the parameter I perceive you are disrespecting:
- NEGATIVE: [...] implying that bundling an educational/research PDF and a fictive re-framing PDF with the GAZ10 PDF (with that GAZ10 text itself left unchanged) is [...] "rewriting the book,"[.]
And if you mean to say that your link didn't necessarily apply to my petition, then I point you also to this parameter:
- NEGATIVE: Posting non-sequiturs along these lines[.]
The Moderators are welcome to correct me, but my perspective is that just because a poster uses "hedging words" (such as the word "might" or "generally"), that doesn't give a poster a carte blanche to then follow those "hedging words" with just anything, such as a statement which conflicts with ENWorld posting policies, or in this case, specific requested [+] parameters for this thread.
en.wikipedia.org