Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 36:
Line 36: − − == Next step == − − Andy, the PNAS Editorial Board seems to have taken point 5 as your substantive objection - and has rejected it out of hand. Perhaps you should submit a new letter and use your 250 words to argue specifically for that point. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 19:21, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 23:31, September 13, 2008
, 23:31, September 13, 2008Reverted edits by JohnZ (Talk); changed back to last version by IanG
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine, then I'll just say I agree with the response.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:44, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine, then I'll just say I agree with the response.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:44, 13 September 2008 (EDT)