Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 506: Line 506:     
: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points.  One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose!  But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
 
: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points.  One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose!  But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
 +
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2]  that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
 +
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
199

edits

Navigation menu