SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 218:
Line 218: + + + + + + + + + +
→Common core: new section
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:45, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:45, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
:Christians who have interacted with atheists have a common observation that atheists rail about how supposedly stupid and/or crazy they are. Once in a while, I like to tweak their nose about these matters as I find it amusing to do so (spelling bee competition ranking, Word Dynamo test score, a certain gentlemen saying I am quite rational when debating a certain party at this website, the I/we issue and the errant personality profiling, etc.. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:48, 2 August 2013 (EDT)
:Christians who have interacted with atheists have a common observation that atheists rail about how supposedly stupid and/or crazy they are. Once in a while, I like to tweak their nose about these matters as I find it amusing to do so (spelling bee competition ranking, Word Dynamo test score, a certain gentlemen saying I am quite rational when debating a certain party at this website, the I/we issue and the errant personality profiling, etc.. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:48, 2 August 2013 (EDT)
== Common core ==
Just a quick note about my ''modus operandi'' on the [[Essay:Common_Core]] article: Lately I've been trying to keep a strict "hands off" policy about removing any material from a page, even if I think it's completely wrong. There seems to be a policy that one must not remove, or "censor" as it's sometimes called, anything. You can see that policy very clearly by looking through the histories of the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[E%3Dmc²]] articles. But I found that adding information is OK. The best example being a whole new article, [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity]]. There has been peace in the relativity department (at least as far as I am concerned; some people still don't "get it") since then.
When I added the analysis of proof coverage in the Common Core article, I took out Andy's statement that there is no coverage. Then I realized my error, and put it back in when I added the analysis of pre-calculus.
This is not to criticize your actions in any way. Just letting you know where I was coming from. Of course, as a sysop, you can do things that I can't.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 16 October 2013 (EDT)