Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + +
no edit summary
Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)
I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
== Reversion explained ==
== Reversion explained ==