416
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: − + + + + + + + +
→Existence confirmed?: grammar, big science, UC, compromise. plus: edit conflict response
::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)