Changes

:You accuse ''me'' of being malicious and destructive?  You suddenly level accusations of negligence on my part and just as suddenly declare the accusations to be settled.  Is that how carelessly you treat the truths of science as well?

:You accuse ''me'' of being malicious and destructive?  You suddenly level accusations of negligence on my part and just as suddenly declare the accusations to be settled.  Is that how carelessly you treat the truths of science as well?

:Here's another example:  AugustO and Andy are discussing the nature of the verification of the equation.  Andy says "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?"  Then suddenly you rush in all of a sudden to make sure that there is a statement in the article that insists the equation is already "verified"—while the meaning of that verification is simulataneously being discussed!  Is that how you treat the truths of science, by judging the ones to be true as those belonging to whomever can cram in their assertions first?

:Here's another example:  AugustO and Andy are discussing the nature of the verification of the equation.  Andy says "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?"  Then you rush in all of a sudden to make sure that there is a statement in the article that insists the equation is already "verified"—while the meaning of that verification is simulataneously being discussed!  Is that how you treat the truths of science, by judging the ones to be true as those belonging to whomever can cram in their assertions first?

:Here's a third example:  Once you can't cram in your assertions the first, you label my actions malicious and destructive as if I were harming the article, but really I'm just harming your ability to gain the upper hand.  You immediately turn and chop the statement I was objecting to into pieces in fatuous eagerness to pursue an effort to pick my brain to see where you can gain the advantage against Andy in other ways.  Is that how you treat the truths of science, that that science should be whatever is left over after one person carries out an effort to argumentively overpower another and that might makes right science?  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

:Here's a third example:  Once you can't cram in your assertions the first, you label my actions malicious and destructive as if I were harming the article, but really I'm just harming your ability to gain the upper hand.  You immediately turn and chop the statement I was objecting to into pieces in fatuous eagerness to pursue an effort to pick my brain to see where you can gain the advantage against Andy in other ways.  Is that how you treat the truths of science, that that science should be whatever is left over after one person carries out an effort to argumentively overpower another and that might makes right science?  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)