User talk:Metaknowledge/Types of vandal
@Equinox I enjoyed reading your essay. Aearthrise (𓂀) 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox I really enjoyed your write-up. However, I think you forgot one type, the fanatic, who can be further split in two subtypes:
a) The dishonest nationalist, who seems to plague any language connected to Turkish, in particular. His ultimate goal seems to be to prove every language in Eurasia is Turkic, though, for now, he'll settle on showing that every word previously tracable back to PIE is actually an Ottoman Turkish loan. He will engage in endless debates – mostly with himself – and is ready to accept any leap in reasoning as soon as it supports his thesis that his is the most 'ancient' of languages. Of course, these types are found elsewhere too, and an honourable mention must be given to certain languges of the Indian subcontinent.
b) The religious zealot. He doesn't seem interested in debate, preferring long, often nonsensical, monologues instead. The dots he connects are downright not there, as is apparent to anyone not blinded by whatever he is. When made aware of his mistake, he will take the criticism as satanism and source etymologies from the Pentateuch, crossreferencing the Revelation.
- Llittleserie (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- If nationalism and relgion aren't single issues, I don't know what is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)