1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 201:
Line 201: + + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": I see, you're not an Anglophile, you just like Australian spelling!
::::: Now, the majority of editors debating this are clearly on the side of including the title, and you have not advanced much in the way of a reason to oppose it, other than subjective claims such as it being "meaningless", so can we just let this issue go and accept that the majority have spoken?
::::: Now, the majority of editors debating this are clearly on the side of including the title, and you have not advanced much in the way of a reason to oppose it, other than subjective claims such as it being "meaningless", so can we just let this issue go and accept that the majority have spoken?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I see, you're not an Anglophile, you just like Australian spelling! You're funny. Well, you live in a country that puts the British queen on its money, and you go out of your way to credit the British monarchy. You're welcome to your opinions, but I really think that they don't belong on the Isaac Newton page.
:::::: The "sir" title is not just meaningless to me and most Americans; it is apparent that you don't know what it means either, as evidenced by your bogus distinction between real knighthoods and honorary knighthoods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==