1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: + + + + + +
AustinM!!!
:Went ahead with it since there doesn't seem to be anything speaking against it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Went ahead with it since there doesn't seem to be anything speaking against it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== AustinM!!! ==
Next time you plan to revert HOURS of hard work that involved looking up new and insightful articles and actually READING a few of the cited sources, '''USE THE TALK PAGE!'''
I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)