"Skywise" wrote in message
...
|I was terribly bored and took the time to read the discussion.
|
| It's a very simple issue and you seem dumb as a brick regarding
| it.
|
| If what you propose is NOT original research, then you will have
| references to verifiable sources that also discuss what you
| propose.
|
| The wikipedia moderators are simply enforcing the rules of the
| system that require all content to be referenced to verifiable
| sources. They've asked that you supply these references.
|
| It seems you are the one who's being obstinate and obtuse.
|
| I must be terribly bored again, since I took the time to reply
| to your drivel.
|
| Have a nice day!!!!
|
| Brian
| --
| http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
| Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
| Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
| Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Cardinal Bored Brian:
This is what your predecessor, Cardinal Saint Bobby Bellarmine, wrote in
support of the dual standards of wackypedia.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v11n3p18.htm

This is the dual standard I refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Problems with emission theory" - no references to verifiable sources.
"confirms special relativity" -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"Problems with Special_relativity" - conspicuous by its absence.

Who is guarding you, Cardinal Bored and Boring Brian, total loser?
You seem dumb as a brick regarding it.
Have a miserable day.