Changes

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.  And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.  And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like you're hyperpolizing by calling it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present forms, the statements are fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocnent.  I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that. Silly political vernacular doesn't define a person, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperpolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present forms, the statements are fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, I will answer it. It's completely innocnent.  I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I do not feel liberals or conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)