Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-1764483-20151128161343/@comment-25230228-20151202035332

Brainulator9 wrote: Birdpool wrote: My reading comprehension: I got what you meant, you piece of Rubidium (ad hominem ), but what you're not getting is that you don't make sense. Reread what I wrote, and at leat TRY to understand it this thyme. I read it the first time, and what I'm saying is this: you're saying that "etymology" is more self-explanatory and "origins" would force us to add information that we don't know, despite that not being the case in most situations, when external documents confirm the inspirations for certain plants, such as Potato Mine. This could also include other information, such as development changes or why plants do certain things.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's clear you're suggesting that I'm strawmanning when that's not the case. What I'm saying is that "Origins" IMPLIES something different than it is supposed to be. that's all, quit confusing youself. (Also, I'm not quite sure you got my Rubidium joke.)