65
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + +
→Reversion
:Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, then that seems to be OK, at least for some editors.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, then that seems to be OK, at least for some editors.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks Argon. I'm lost... I didn't feel my comment was an attack at all, just constructive criticism. It's very clear to me that a number of the claims being made are simply wrong, and that those pursuing this should try and bring on board somebody with expert knowledge to try and create a more solid argument. Numerous Conservapedia editors have pointed this out, yet those of us who believe that the letter to PNAS was anything less than 100% perfect have our comments deleted, and get threatened with bans. It's not like I've made any trouble here whatsoever. I joined a month or two ago, I've quietly made a number of contributions for which I've had no acknowledgment (nor asked for it), yet when I dare voice my opinion on a talk page specifically created to discuss the PNAS response, I get threatened with a ban... [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 20:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)