185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 164:
Line 164: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 23:27, July 17, 2008
, 23:27, July 17, 2008→Formal Response to PNAS
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Although I disagree with most of Andy's conclusion, I am all in favor of Andy signing and submitting his comments to the PNAS on behalf of Conservapedia (and the Eagle Forum , assuming they provide some sponsorship of this site). That is, after all, within his rights and possibly a responsibility as well. Given that Andy outlined most of the pages on the subject and authored most of the core arguments on the pages, I think it would be crazy for Andy to walk away from what has clearly been his leadership role.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
== Expertise in Statistics ==
== Expertise in Statistics ==