Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Epoch"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Term to use) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Thanks Ed!! Now, to clarify, there is no distinction between "evolutionary" and "mainstream" science, except that "evolutionary" is used as a pejorative here to denigrate the quality of the science, even though those using the term don't understand the science itself. Please understand and accept the distinction.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | :Thanks Ed!! Now, to clarify, there is no distinction between "evolutionary" and "mainstream" science, except that "evolutionary" is used as a pejorative here to denigrate the quality of the science, even though those using the term don't understand the science itself. Please understand and accept the distinction.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
::As there have been many edit wars in the past over the phrase to use, I really think a site-wide policy needs to be set on this. Of course "evolutionary scientists" is wrong but [[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] seems to disagree. Maybe it should be brought up on [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s page. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ::As there have been many edit wars in the past over the phrase to use, I really think a site-wide policy needs to be set on this. Of course "evolutionary scientists" is wrong but [[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] seems to disagree. Maybe it should be brought up on [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s page. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Andy doesn't care, and if he does, he will care in the wrong direction. We shall fight them on the stub pages. We shall fight them on the template pages. We shall fight them on the debate pages. But we shall not fight them on Andy's page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:36, March 29, 2007
Well, good. At least this editorial dispute can take place on one page. (I refuse to take sides or even express an opinion. I'm just your technical support guy at this point. :-) --Ed Poor 11:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks Ed!! Now, to clarify, there is no distinction between "evolutionary" and "mainstream" science, except that "evolutionary" is used as a pejorative here to denigrate the quality of the science, even though those using the term don't understand the science itself. Please understand and accept the distinction.-AmesGyo! 12:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- As there have been many edit wars in the past over the phrase to use, I really think a site-wide policy needs to be set on this. Of course "evolutionary scientists" is wrong but Tim seems to disagree. Maybe it should be brought up on Aschlafly's page. --JamesK 12:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- Andy doesn't care, and if he does, he will care in the wrong direction. We shall fight them on the stub pages. We shall fight them on the template pages. We shall fight them on the debate pages. But we shall not fight them on Andy's page.-AmesGyo! 12:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- As there have been many edit wars in the past over the phrase to use, I really think a site-wide policy needs to be set on this. Of course "evolutionary scientists" is wrong but Tim seems to disagree. Maybe it should be brought up on Aschlafly's page. --JamesK 12:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)