1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 117:
Line 117: + +
→Newton’s theory invalid: I did not make baseless accusations and personal attacks against you
:: I still don't agree. Why don't you also say that relativity is invalid, because of dark energy or quantization? Maybe the reader could read Putnam's book and figure out what he meant, but to just declare that Newtonian gravity is invalid is very misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: I still don't agree. Why don't you also say that relativity is invalid, because of dark energy or quantization? Maybe the reader could read Putnam's book and figure out what he meant, but to just declare that Newtonian gravity is invalid is very misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I refuse to continue any discussion with you until you apologize for your baseless accusations and personal attacks against me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I refuse to continue any discussion with you until you apologize for your baseless accusations and personal attacks against me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: I did not make baseless accusations and personal attacks against you. I did not say that you "misleadingly quoted Putnam"; you didn't even quote him at all as far as I can see. I did not accuse you of academic dishonesty. I did say that "your sentence is very misleading", and that is still my opinion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)