Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
MFH (talk | contribs)
of course, simply insane...
→‎Muslim: Name-calling is not an argument
Line 22: Line 22:


Because of this article I know that the guy who attracted me to my career is now a flake. Thanks Wikipedia :( [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of this article I know that the guy who attracted me to my career is now a flake. Thanks Wikipedia :( [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gazpacho: Name-calling is not an argument. On the contrary, if one side of a discussion seems to have nothing to offer except name-calling, it could be taken as a sign that the proponents of that side do not have a case. In any case, calling the subjects of articles names ("flake") really ought to have no place in our activity as Wikipedia editors. —[[User:IslandGyrl|IslandGyrl]] 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:19, 19 November 2006

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Yikes. I read Dewdney's 911 stuff. Terrifying. He is simply insane. Now I really regret writing to him when he was at scientific american. WHAT a nut job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminumerical (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling without any specifics. --IslandGyrl 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be interested to know exactly what you find fault with, too. I just found out about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center and it seems pretty bizarre to me. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But operation pearl has nothing to do with the Building 7 collapse. Why don't you read it. Bov 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since read it, and though it's not directly related, I wouldn't say it has "nothing to do with" it. —Keenan Pepper 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seminumerical: I had my own thoughts about 9/11, but did not know that such a huge enlightened community of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 did exist, until I came across this page. Do you sincerely think that all of them would adopt "such a hilarious nonsense science fiction story" if their scientific minds were not profoundly convinced, in view of the evidence, that this is true? They would do this just for fun, or because they don't like Bush? oh, I see: they're "simply insane", of course... — MFH:Talk 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Muslim

Are you sure he is a Muslim? His personal page mentions slightly his 9/11 activities and extensively his environmental activities, but nothing about religion. Besides don't converted Muslims usually take an Arabic name?

I removed this unsourced claim. No reference about him being converted to islam on his homepage or CV. --Magabund 10:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this article I know that the guy who attracted me to my career is now a flake. Thanks Wikipedia :( Gazpacho 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpacho: Name-calling is not an argument. On the contrary, if one side of a discussion seems to have nothing to offer except name-calling, it could be taken as a sign that the proponents of that side do not have a case. In any case, calling the subjects of articles names ("flake") really ought to have no place in our activity as Wikipedia editors. —IslandGyrl 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply