User talk:Gresavage

Before you remove or change anything, we need you to explain why on the relevant talk page. Karajou 00:39, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Also you can't just explain and then change. Starting on the talk page means there's a discussion; that discussion might go your way; it might not, but edit warring isn't allowed.--IDuan 18:54, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

I explained, Andy Schlafy prompty replied, i rebutted. He also provided no sources to support his arguments. I have provided both non-biased sources, and sources that are biased against my arguments in support of my arguments. These sources (non-biased) are well respected and accepted as accurate secondary and primary sources. I did not misquote or misinform from those sources, and if i must i will mail you a quantum mechanics and general relativity textbook, or perhaps even some dissertations and such regarding this matter and perhaps you can peruse them for the veracity of my claims. Many of the arguments i presented have been discussed in great detail already on the talk page. Andy schlafly is presenting irrelevant facts and arguments, if not completely erroneous ones; he supports his arguments with no sources, and no credibility. If we are solely to determine the accuracy of arguments solely on the magnitude of sources provided, and not even their credibility, andy schlafly's positions would be entirely wrong. If we were to incorporate the actual validity as well, then it would be apparent that he should not be a member of this site. His arguments are biased, ignorant, and demonstrably false (in most cases). I have demonstrated how they are inaccurate, and yet neither of you seem to be obliging your administrative duties, or ethical ones in providing accurate and up-to-date information.

I have not even begun to delve into the reasons why biblical references are not valid support of nearly any argument, however i have respected your bias for that. I will not, however, respect your bias for disseminating false information. I, as well as other users, have thoroughly rebutted most all of the counterexamples on the main page, I have even gone to the lengths as to provide credible and complete sources to back these rebuttals up; which is more than can be said for most of the information even provided on the main page. "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)". I quote you on disregarding this users rebuttal to "having never found gravity waves" by discrediting his source. However, if you are going to disallow him from changing the information on the page because his source is not valid, then you should immediately remove all of the counterexamples which do not have valid sources, or provide them at once. In my edit of the page, i allowed the uncited information to remain, provided that in time (relatively promptly), valid sources would be provided. As an administrator it would be hypocritical to allow inaccurate information without citations to persist, whilst disallowing accurate information with poor citations, or even proper ones. Gresavage 19:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)