1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 200:
Line 200: + +
→Both Theories Correct?: There is nothing kooky in the article
::OK, I took a quick look at the histroy and I see what you mean about kooky. But it's a little kooky right now, and it's never going to get un-kooky unless someone takes a chance and unlocks it. This place is going to start to look like Wikipedia, where some admin waits until his own viewpoint is represented by the article and then locks it. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 18:18, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I took a quick look at the histroy and I see what you mean about kooky. But it's a little kooky right now, and it's never going to get un-kooky unless someone takes a chance and unlocks it. This place is going to start to look like Wikipedia, where some admin waits until his own viewpoint is represented by the article and then locks it. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 18:18, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::: There is nothing kooky in the article. Everything there has been conventional wisdom for almost a century. Are you claiming that something there is wrong? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)