What happened? I thought you'd come to your senses and given up. You really should walk away from this tiny site. It's better for your health.
"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
TonyJ 14:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- Great freedom of information post on the Dawkins page. It was game set and match before your post now, well - what comes after game set and match? --British_cons (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Seems like you came here merely to talk, not to contribute. I appreciate any desire you may have to clear the record, but arguing about the record is fruitless. I'm only interested in proof that Oxford followed the normal requirements for granting a professorship. What you supplied instead was an exhaustive list of the requirements themselves - but no proof that they were followed.
As I said before, if you can't supply the proof, I can only assume you don't have it. If you ever do run across such proof, don't bother to post on the talk page. Just edit the article itself; it's not protected. --Ed Poor Talk 12:19, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
- I'd love to Ed, but every time I've edited it has been reverted. I have in fact already provided the proof you seek in the talk pages, way back in December 2007, but changes I made at the time were also reverted. OurMike 12:53, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
- The talk page where I presented the evidence from Oxford: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins&diff=prev&oldid=351021
- The article page changes (later reverted) http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=prev&oldid=362186