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 200:
Line 200: − − :::::It would seem that "Moving on" is easier on his ego than to concede he was wrong. It's simply amazing that all traces of this incident are yet to be removed from this site, with bans administered to anyone who dares to mention it. That's the usual protocol for protecting Andy's fragile ego.
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 00:25, November 3, 2008
, 00:25, November 3, 2008Reverted edits by LFeldstein (Talk) to last version by DavyJones
::::More importantly, I don't see how Aschlafly can give up on an argument he started. It's plain from what KennyMac and other wrote that his Point 5 is not correct. Now, is he going to do CP readers the favour of reaching a rational conclusion to this discussion or is he going to resort to his ploy of blocking contributors with whom he doesn't agree? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::::More importantly, I don't see how Aschlafly can give up on an argument he started. It's plain from what KennyMac and other wrote that his Point 5 is not correct. Now, is he going to do CP readers the favour of reaching a rational conclusion to this discussion or is he going to resort to his ploy of blocking contributors with whom he doesn't agree? [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 20:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)