SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + + + + + +
User talk:Richardm (view source)
Revision as of 00:36, September 26, 2016
, 00:36, September 26, 2016→Reinhold Niebuhr Quote: new section
I can kind of understand Cons ([[User:Conservative]]), and even communicate with him (excuse me, with all the many people in the "collective" that he wants us to believe he fantasizes about), but I simply have no idea how to deal with this person. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
I can kind of understand Cons ([[User:Conservative]]), and even communicate with him (excuse me, with all the many people in the "collective" that he wants us to believe he fantasizes about), but I simply have no idea how to deal with this person. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
== Reinhold Niebuhr Quote ==
<blockquote>God grant me the serenity to accept the things that are above the table of contents, the courage to change the things that are below it, and the wisdom to know the difference</blockquote>
I've been around Andy's thermodynamics stuff for quite a while. All his pet ideas are concentrated in that one small section. Including "intelligent intervention", "intrinsic uncertainty in nature, manifest in quantum mechanics", "inevitably derails the system", and "disproves the atheistic Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity". It's really a nice compact section. We should leave it that way, and give a correct exposition below the TOC. I removed the word "derail" once, and Andy put it back in.
To see another example, look at "Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap", in the [[E%3Dmc²]] article. You can't take that out. That article isn't nearly as neat as the 2nd law article, by the way. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:36, 25 September 2016 (EDT)