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
Line 162:
Line 162: − == Random Talk == − (non-substantive postings deleted; the rule for this page is enforced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 24 September 2008 (EDT)) − − :After reading the deleted postings in the history I'm not sure you did the right thing ASchlafly. They should stay here, or be moved to the liberal style page that they perfectly illustrate. On the other hand, deleting them keeps readers from having to sort through that trash: three different weighting styles?? Surely Brossa and Toffeeman can at least attempt an honest argument without having to conjure up new mathematics. [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 19:15, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 02:17, October 13, 2008
, 02:17, October 13, 2008→Random Talk: removed clutter
Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>