Changes

Line 140: Line 140:     
:"''Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.''" Best quote of the whole discussion, Edmund. I find it ridiculous that Andy thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet he has the audacity to accuse me of "talking big." I can't remember if you were around for the evolution debate, but they played by the same tactics there as well. They had a ton of questions that they believed could not be answered, and then dismissed the answers that I gave without reason. Also, I am confused by the seemingly contradictory arguments that I am getting from this group. On the one hand, Andy is trying to use the number of students that he has helped to give himself some sort of authority (though I have yet to determine its relevance in this discussion). On the other hand, Jacob is saying that professor values are not reliable. This seems to take the wind out of Andy's sails, because the "help" he gives students is also dependent on "professor values." [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 
:"''Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.''" Best quote of the whole discussion, Edmund. I find it ridiculous that Andy thinks he knows us better than we know ourselves, and yet he has the audacity to accuse me of "talking big." I can't remember if you were around for the evolution debate, but they played by the same tactics there as well. They had a ton of questions that they believed could not be answered, and then dismissed the answers that I gave without reason. Also, I am confused by the seemingly contradictory arguments that I am getting from this group. On the one hand, Andy is trying to use the number of students that he has helped to give himself some sort of authority (though I have yet to determine its relevance in this discussion). On the other hand, Jacob is saying that professor values are not reliable. This seems to take the wind out of Andy's sails, because the "help" he gives students is also dependent on "professor values." [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:46, 13 December 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
'''Two replies:''' First, to NickNock, you say "I agree that citing an encyclopedia is foolish and that you should always cite the source."  You're clueless: encyclopedias, published ones, are valid references for any academic paper.  It is encyclopedias like Wikipedia which are not published which are not valid references.
 +
 +
Second, to Insufficient.  Why are you even here?  All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible.  It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order.  I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
3,552

edits