Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.conspiracy    |    How big is your tinfoil hat?    |    97,877 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 97,269 of 97,877    |
|    Dawn Flood to chine.bleu    |
|    Re: This is why Wikipedia is a disgrace    |
|    19 Nov 25 18:14:47    |
      XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.paranormal       XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh       From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com              On 11/19/2025 3:56 PM, chine.bleu wrote:       > Dawn Flood wrote:       >> To my knowledge, you have never cited any scholars who support any of       >> your views. In a couple of other threads, you have claimed that modern       >> climate science is all a bunch of crap, and yet, the largest number of       >> coauthors to a published scientific paper concerned itself with       >> anthropogenic climate change:       >>       >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity       >>       >> And, yet, you will not even cite the climate deniers:       >>       >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial       >>       >> Unlike any true scholar, you don't have any need to appeal to any one       >> else's work other than your own.       >       > The value of any encyclopedia are the references. They lead to all the       > facts, and can even open a network of facts so the reader can read the       > original resources and make their own conclusion. If any wants to attack       > wikipedia, attack their use of references. Articles can be crap, but       > with proper cites you can ignore the article and still get information.       >              Yeppers!!              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca