User talk:Buddy23Lee

supervenience
Red links help us to expand. Don't delete them. Add suitable entries! Thanks. Equinox ◑ 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was a suitable entry, you think otherwise. I guess that's where we find some disagreement. I try to be bold in editing but I'll take note of your advisement as well. Thanks. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be used in many philosophy books, so looks like a "real word": . Equinox ◑ 10:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess what I find the most ironic about all this is that after all your effort to preserve it you're still just leaving it an unexpanded red link. I think a year from now when it still remains a useless, silly sounding link to nowhere I'm going to come back and razz you about it. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would've removed it as well. But I understand Equinox's point of view too — I can't add it because I don't know what the hell it means! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

On the bright side, this taught me an annoying yet important lesson about attestation versus notability. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I still don't know what it means. Hmm. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, fantastic! Well, I think we all learned an important, superdupervenient lesson today. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)