Changes

Assuming you have a point, I'd say that you have a better chance of getting it accepted - IF you use facts and reasoning rather than accusations and personal remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 18:54, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Assuming you have a point, I'd say that you have a better chance of getting it accepted - IF you use facts and reasoning rather than accusations and personal remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 18:54, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:How's about the fact that every bit of evidence Aschlafly has produced to 'prove' that Dawkins is not a 'real professor' has been proven to be either irrelevant or flat-out wrong?  How's about the fact that Merriam-Webster, the very people, according to the article, who define 'professor' in a manner that Dawkins does not fit, categorically deny this, and say that,'Since Dr. Dawkins holds two PhDs (in addition to numerous honorary degrees) and teaches at Oxford University, it is appropriate to use the title "professor" for him'?  How's about the fact Oxford University has an entire mini-site dedicated to the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, and, in there, repeatedly refers to Dawkins as a 'professor'?  How's about the ample evidence presented on the talk page, most notably by OurMike and British_cons, that Dawkins was conferred his professorship in the normal manner?  In short, how's about every single piece of evidence that has repeatedly been brought up in the talk page many times in the past several MONTHS, which has either been ignored by Aschlafly, or he has accused people of fabricating it?  Even when given explicit instructions as to how to obtain this evidence for himself, in a manner that would leave it's authenticity in no doubt whatsoever, he refuses to do so, and, instead, continues to try to claim it is 'fake' or the people providing it 'do not have the authority to do so', without actually providing any evidence of this claim at all.  For my 'facts and reasoning', see the discussion on this matter in the Dawkins Talk Page and Talk Page Archives.  All the arguments have been made, and the balance of the evidence is clearly MASSIVELY in favour of Dawkins being a 'real professor', so to say otherwise, as I said above, is arguably libel.  For that reason, if no other (such as conforming to the Conservapedia Commandments about verifiability, for example), the page should be altered, as I did, to reflect this. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:How's about the fact that every bit of evidence Aschlafly has produced to 'prove' that Dawkins is not a 'real professor' has been proven to be either irrelevant or flat-out wrong?  How's about the fact that Merriam-Webster, the very people, according to the article, who define 'professor' in a manner that Dawkins does not fit, categorically deny this, and say that,'Since Dr. Dawkins holds two PhDs (in addition to numerous honorary degrees) and teaches at Oxford University, it is appropriate to use the title "professor" for him'?  How's about the fact Oxford University has an entire mini-site dedicated to the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, and, in there, repeatedly refers to Dawkins as a 'professor'?  How's about the ample evidence presented on the talk page, most notably by OurMike and British_cons, that Dawkins was conferred his professorship in the normal manner?  In short, how's about every single piece of evidence that has repeatedly been brought up in the talk page many times in the past several MONTHS, which has either been ignored by Aschlafly, or he has accused people of fabricating it?  Even when given explicit instructions as to how to obtain this evidence for himself, in a manner that would leave it's authenticity in no doubt whatsoever, he refuses to do so, and, instead, continues to try to claim it is 'fake' or the people providing it 'do not have the authority to do so', without actually providing any evidence of this claim at all.  For my 'facts and reasoning', see the discussion on this matter in the Dawkins Talk Page and Talk Page Archives.  All the arguments have been made, and the balance of the evidence is clearly MASSIVELY in favour of Dawkins being a 'real professor', so to say otherwise, as I said above, is arguably libel.  For that reason, if no other (such as conforming to the Conservapedia Commandments about verifiability, for example), the page should be altered, as I did, to reflect this. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:I should also point out that this 'discussion' has been going on since at least early October, and the only things that have changed between now and then is the article has become more and more erroneous, due to edits by Aschlafly, and the evidence proving he is wrong has been mounting higher and higher, so why is more discussion needed? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:I should also point out that this 'discussion' has been going on since at least early October, and the only things that have changed between now and then is the article has become more and more erroneous, due to edits by Aschlafly (and any attempts to correct it reverted, usually by Aschafly), and the evidence proving he is wrong has been mounting higher and higher, so why is more discussion needed? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)