Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,797
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: − − ::::: But Aschlafly, you ''still'' have not yet explained your own mathematical analysis. It seems you will do anything to debate with others, but nothing whatsoever to actually ''explain'' your own thesis - constantly repeating that you are correct is not a reasonable argument. A very large number of editors have asked some very simple question which you must surely have the answers to, since they are fundamental to your thesis, yet you utterly refuse to provide an answer and instead debate, debate, and block. ''Surely'' this discussion can be kept on a reasonable, open-minded keel AND at the same time, include extensive statistical and mathematical explanations from BOTH sides of the issue? None of us - yourself included - are enjoying this 'debate about a debate'. Please, try to back up your argument with some actual evidence. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT) −
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 01:32, September 17, 2008
, 01:32, September 17, 2008removed "BenHur's" non-substantive edit; one more non-substantive posting, BenHur, and your account will be blocked
:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"