SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Taking out redundant sentence: new section
This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)
This juxtaposition is very painful: Why should it by problematic that the "intrinsic energy" has nothing to do with gravity, when the first part talks about the object's inertia? Where is the "contrast"? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 18 March 2015 (EDT)
== Taking out redundant sentence ==
I have taken the liberty of restoring (almost exactly) my version of 21:14, 8 June 2015. The previous version had what was essentially the same sentence twice, consecutively. It said:
:However, it is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this equation.
:Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation.
This can't possibly be what you wanted. The version I left in was the second one, with "Political pressure", and "nonsensical". I disagree with "nonsensical", but it's your website. I agree with the near-impossibility of anyone doubting this equation to successfully pursue an academic career in science, though probably for the reasons you think.
But I have taken out the word "since". It makes no sense in the current context; it may have made sense in an earlier context.
Now it's true that the longer intro paragraph was more "full", but that's only because it had the redundant sentence. I think the intro that I have left is full enough. It has "nonsensical", and it has the famous "claptrap" sentence. This must be the intro that you want. OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:47, 11 June 2015 (EDT)