Conservapedia talk:Parthian shot

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm trying to think of how to word the fact that Andy dishonestly discredits any such parting words by simply declaring it as a Parthian shot and thus ignoring any points that have been made. --Kels 16:21, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it's sort of the ideological version of an antibody. By pasting a Snarl Word label on something you don't like, it can be easily ignored. --Gulik 15:47, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Round here, we call that "sticking your fingers in your ears while going 'la la la la la I can't hear you'". But that doesn't help you much...XD Trashbat 16:25, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I was hoping for something a little more classy, but the shoe does fit... --Kels 16:26, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I've always had the feeling Andy likes the term so much because it makes him feel smarter-than-thou to demonstrate that he knows it. But that may just be me. --jtltalk 16:37, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Only works the first time you use it though. The fact he seems to relish every opportunity he gets to use it makes him seem like a feeble minded child who is proud that he learnded somfink fwom the gwown ups. Trashbat 16:42, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I know you've probably all seen it, but this one is beautiful. Simply leaving is now considered a Parthian shot. --Kels 11:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I think there is a clear distinction between parting shot and Parthian shot. The former is just a type of last-wordism while the latter implies pwnage. So Andy's use of the term is an admission that he's been pwned. Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 04:42, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd love that to be true Genghis, but I can't find any source which illustrates those different meanings.--Bobbing up 06:33, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Having just goooooogled the term (.co.uk) CP is at 39 and RW is 40. The intro to both is the same, can someone rewrite it to make it look as if we didn't copy it from there? Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 04:53, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Have we taken Andy's word for this?[edit]

The idea that "Parting shot" shot should really be "Parthian shot" is something which Andy is very keen on. But after 10 seconds investigation I'm not so sure. The WP article talks about it possibly being a "folk etymology". Furthermore, even if it does originally derive from "Parthian Shot", that's not what the majority of the human race actually says. I think we've been converted by Andy.--Bobbing up 11:06, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Well if that is the case we should change it to Conservapedia/parthian shot (something I think we should do anyway)--Damo2353 11:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
I suppose so, yes. But I was more interested in the pseudo-intellectual in Andy telling everybody what they should be saying.--Bobbing up 11:19, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
I am afraid I read the WP article differently to you. I think (and I could be wrong) it says that "Parthian shot" was the original and it has ben changed in generl usage to "parting shot". That was my understanding before I had ever heard of the Schlafly Dynasty. NB that in New Zealand The Schlafly family isn't studied until form 6 -(about 16-17) at school.--Damo2353 11:28, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, I was referring to this bit: The term "parting shot," used similarly, may be a folk etymology of "Parthian shot," meaning the term was corrupted through common parlance, but there is little firm evidence to support this claim. Which certainly seems to say that it may be a folk etymology with little firm evidence.
But my main point is that, whatever the original phrase may have been, it now is "parting shot". English is loaded with words which have changed meaning or pronunciation over time. If we keep insisting on going back to "true original" words and meanings we'll end up speaking Alglo-Saxon! It's what they mean here and now that's important. --Bobbing up 11:34, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Anglo Saxon is not really that bad. Anyhow, the two are slightly different and frankly, I think that andy do-do head over at CP is wrong. the correct term for a "parting shot" is parting shot. a Parthian shot is a more specific attack that is done when one has the truth, knows that his opponent knows he has the truth, but is being removed from the chance to talk. Or that's my take on it anyhow. Parting Shot: You people are such turd heads and thick skulled ninnies I can't communicate with you any more. Parthian shot:Since I knwo you are about to block me, perhaps someone will read this and learn something. The 12 medical arguments that show you know nothing about breast cancer reasearch are etc.... Isn't that what WP is trying to make distinct?--WaitingforGodot 11:43, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict):::I agree with you wholeheartedly about the silly notion of preserving the language as it was, but in this particular case I think Andy's right. I had always understood the term to be parthian shot. By the way, pompous speakers of english who insist on using the queens english annoy the shit out of me. Languages evolve and they generally improve as they do (I suspect) so we shouldn't fight it.— Unsigned, by: Damo2353 / talk / contribs


Parting shot: Yelling "yeah, well your mother wears army boots" while being chucked out of a bar.

Partian shot: Making one's exit before pissing off the bartender and throwing a molotov cocktail over your shoulder through the plate glass window. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:59, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Particular PSs[edit]

I think we should gather them all here as sub files (eg parthian shot/excpuser). Also, this really should be in the CP namespace, shouldn't it? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely on both counts. I've been looking for a few more but they're hard to find.--Damo2353 17:09, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Your starter for 10. --Robledo 17:21, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Nice work Human. I am in two minds as to whether the "classic PS's should be at the bottom of the page as in a "see also" section or kept where they are due to the fact they are most important part of the article. It looks a little clumsy as it is, but perhaps it functions better. Your thoughts?--Damo2353 17:40, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, yeah, that worked out nicely. Let's keep them where they are, all that's below is some research into the etymology, and really, this article serves as a holding tank for them. Nice work whoever dug out those other three... We could also add a section with particularly juicy "Parthian shot" quotes by teh assfly, if anyone feels like it. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:23, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

TK?[edit]

Didn't he have a Parthian shot of sorts when he left first time around? I'm sure somebody posted it somewhere recently. Or was it just a insane rant which meant he had to leave in disgrace? If it was a Parthian, shouldn't it at least be mentioned here? wassaiLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 18:27, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Self Promotion[edit]

Mightn't it be a little better if an editor other than yourself makes a decision about whether or not your Parthian Shot is newsworthy or even 'classic', ENorman? Such shameless self-promotion only encourages others, and then it just becomes a question of watching people line up to take parting shots over there, so they can post their own cleverness here? DogP 19:41, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

I was on the verge of adding it anyhow when EN dun it.   .  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 19:49, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
That wouldn't have been a problem at all. But increasingly WIGO's and chat around these parts are of the form "I went over there and did this thing, aren't I great?", which isn't really very cool. Much better if the Good Deeds are simply spotted by the hordes, which they almost always are. Not that ENorman didn't do fine work in the Labour of the Lord, I just think self-promotion of one's sockery or wandalizm on mainspace pages is counter productive. DogP 19:54, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

KSorensen[edit]

Did anyone get to record KSorensen's "Parthian shot" before it was erased?

Thanks, anonymous lurking RationalWiki lover.

Parthian?[edit]

Maquissar, please try harder with an open mind. I cannot justify spending lots of time providing reasons to anyone whose mind is not open.--Andy Schlafly 17:33, 5 March 2010 (EST)

I am sorry, Andrew, but I must completely reject the attitude that, if someone has different ideas and interprets data differently, then his mind must be closed to the Truth. Both sides should work on finding what the truth is by confronting and comparing their ideas with open-mindedness and respect, and neither of them should just say, "You don't understand because your mind is closed, so I won't provide any counterarguments." Personally, I find that attitude narrow-minded and almost offensive.
I believe that my mind is open, and yet after careful examination and reflection I still have not changed idea: in my opinion, the article states that there is a 1% chance of a catastrophic event in 5 billion years. Moreover, in my opinion it states it very clearly; therefore, I still hold that saying that the Solar System CANNOT have survived 5 billion years and using that article as reference is misleading.

However, this is your website, and not my website, so having not found myself compatible with its philosophy in a number of things I think I will leave it. I wish you luck with your project, and I hope the couple of articles I've submitted may be of use to someone. Take care and best wishes! --Maquissar 18:15, 5 March 2010 (EST)
[1]img
SusanG  ContribsTalk (forgot to sign with all the messing with

<capture></capture>.

Yes, sure. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm always too polite :P --Maquissar (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)