11
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + +
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 04:51, March 17, 2007
, 04:51, March 17, 2007→Article violates the site's own "commandments"
:This comment was obviously posted awhile ago, but I'll reply anyway. First of all, Mr. Anonymous, I wish you would sign your comments. Second, you are in no way proving or backing up what you say. You just make these silly remarks and criticisms without even giving an example. This article looks good to me. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:This comment was obviously posted awhile ago, but I'll reply anyway. First of all, Mr. Anonymous, I wish you would sign your comments. Second, you are in no way proving or backing up what you say. You just make these silly remarks and criticisms without even giving an example. This article looks good to me. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::Some examples of ''why'' the article looks good, please? [[User: Prometheus |Prometheus]]
::I seriously hope you weren't serious there. Your first sentence acknowledges that this was posted a long time ago... and then you go on about how TODAY's article looks good to you. For what it's worth, the initial post came from [[User:Alfonz|Alfonz]], dated Feb 22. This can EASILY be checked. It most likely took me far less time to check that than it took you to write your reply. The actual article at that time had been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=15585 this version]. At the time of that posting, the context had been extremely obvious (complete lack of sourcing, pure opinions), so stop belittling people just because you're too lazy to do basic background checks. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::I seriously hope you weren't serious there. Your first sentence acknowledges that this was posted a long time ago... and then you go on about how TODAY's article looks good to you. For what it's worth, the initial post came from [[User:Alfonz|Alfonz]], dated Feb 22. This can EASILY be checked. It most likely took me far less time to check that than it took you to write your reply. The actual article at that time had been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=15585 this version]. At the time of that posting, the context had been extremely obvious (complete lack of sourcing, pure opinions), so stop belittling people just because you're too lazy to do basic background checks. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)