Talk:Crop circles: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (Explanation please) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
You are kidding. Obviously you have not read any of the literature nor have a grasp on the scientific methodologies conducted by dozens of real scientists around the world. Be a little more specific. Personally I find your attitude somewhat disturbing like, you want war, let's go Show me your sources.[[User:Thomas Mandel|Thomas Mandel]] 01:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT) | You are kidding. Obviously you have not read any of the literature nor have a grasp on the scientific methodologies conducted by dozens of real scientists around the world. Be a little more specific. Personally I find your attitude somewhat disturbing like, you want war, let's go Show me your sources.[[User:Thomas Mandel|Thomas Mandel]] 01:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Thomas, this obviously has been taken from [http://www.fixall.org/cerealology/cropcircles.htm] -- I | Thomas, this obviously has been taken from [http://www.fixall.org/cerealology/cropcircles.htm] -- Oh, I see now on [http://www.fixall.org/] that this is your website. | ||
There is an obvious and serious problem with the original, which states: "I write this paper with the assumption that a percentage of crop circles are 'authentic' or NOT man made." This is obviously a minority view. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06: | There is an obvious and serious problem with the original, which states: "I write this paper with the assumption that a percentage of crop circles are 'authentic' or NOT man made." This is obviously a minority view. I'm going to spend a little Write-a-Thon time and see if this article can be rescued or is irremediably biased. I shall endeavor to keep an open mind on that precise question. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:55, 1 August 2007
This article appears to me to be Original Research, extremely biased, completely unscientific, and a ripe candidate for either extreme rewriting with extreme skepticism -- or complete deletion. Hayford Peirce 20:20, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
You are kidding. Obviously you have not read any of the literature nor have a grasp on the scientific methodologies conducted by dozens of real scientists around the world. Be a little more specific. Personally I find your attitude somewhat disturbing like, you want war, let's go Show me your sources.Thomas Mandel 01:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Thomas, this obviously has been taken from [1] -- Oh, I see now on [2] that this is your website.
There is an obvious and serious problem with the original, which states: "I write this paper with the assumption that a percentage of crop circles are 'authentic' or NOT man made." This is obviously a minority view. I'm going to spend a little Write-a-Thon time and see if this article can be rescued or is irremediably biased. I shall endeavor to keep an open mind on that precise question. --Larry Sanger 06:55, 1 August 2007 (CDT)