Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 137:
Line 137: + +
might be beyond the scope of the present article
:Ed, if the criticism were not about me as a person, RSchlafly could have easily said, “I’m sorry, you took that as an attack against your person, I did not intend it as such” and then reprased the offending sentence. Instead he chose to repeat the attack verbatim, KNOWING that I found it personally offensive. I think it is highly reasonable to take offense at the repetition of a charge that the person making the charge knows is offensive. If it were not intended to be offensive, he would not have repeated it.
:Ed, if the criticism were not about me as a person, RSchlafly could have easily said, “I’m sorry, you took that as an attack against your person, I did not intend it as such” and then reprased the offending sentence. Instead he chose to repeat the attack verbatim, KNOWING that I found it personally offensive. I think it is highly reasonable to take offense at the repetition of a charge that the person making the charge knows is offensive. If it were not intended to be offensive, he would not have repeated it.
:As to your deeper questions, I had, at one point, detailed answers to those questions in the article and was told that they were not relevant to the subject of the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:As to your deeper questions, I had, at one point, detailed answers to those questions in the article and was told that they were not relevant to the subject of the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Then write about [[Scientific method]]; [[History of science]] (or physics or astronomy); [[Epistemology]]; or [[Methodology]]. The matter you are addressing here might be beyond the scope of the present article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)