“Just trying to get another bang for lunch, their actual expectations seem clear from their inter”?!?!  What the hell happened to all your talk of assuming good faith 74?  I came here because after reading your statement I thought that you might have switched sides and I wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth. 

 “BarleyBannocks, like vzaak, is a wikipedia-beginner and pure-WP:SPA” 

 ::-74, explorer in the further reaches of miscommunication 

 “BarleyBannocks simply doesn't understand” 

 ::-74, who thinks it’s not what you say, but how much you say 

 “WP:FRINGE applies to the theory of morphic resonance” 

 ::-74, the only man I’ve ever encountered who got his statement on WP:AE deleted by an admin due to its inanity 

 “BarleyBannocks does not understand the subtle nature of WP:FRINGE” 

 ::-74, who once successfully contributed 62.8% of the content on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake 

 I think you will have to excuse me if I, after reading the encouraging comments above, allowed my optimism to get the better of me.  If I had come here to insult you, then by God, you would have known it because SUBTLETY IS NOT MY STRONG SUIT! 

 74, don’t play dumb about me and David.  You know the relevant history.  David insulted Red Pen and me, I told David off, and then Vzaak attacked me out of a cowardly desire to stay on David’s good side.  You know perfectly well that Red Pen and Barney have edited Sheldrake in good faith, and that David’s accusations against them are both serious and untrue.  I take false accusations seriously, and I can WP:IMAGINE that Barney and Red Pen would be pretty pissed off that they’ve been falsely accused of bullying.  David has used his talk page to attack other editors.  He has even used an illustration to do it.  David’s slinging of serous accusations at good faith editors is beyond the pale.  You talk of WP:NICE, and good people, and civility but you’re not judging David by his actions.  David may not apologize, but at least I can say that I spoke for what was right. 

 That said, while I’m here I might as well try asking you to reconsider your position on fringe topics.  74, I think that what you’re failing to do is distinguish between “minority scientific viewpoints” and “anti-scientific viewpoints”.  Alan Feduccia’s hypothesis about the origin of birds (appears) to be a minority scientific viewpoint.  It’s apparently based on embryological data.  And while I don’t think I agree with Feduccia, I think that his hypothesis appears to be a scientific hypothesis.  If I ever get my hands on a bunch of ostrich eggs then I can recreate his study, and maybe I can prove him wrong. 

 Sheldrake, on the other hand, is a diehard retard.  His incoherent writings are bullshit at its most pure.  Sheldrake seeks to do away with science’s “evidence based” system of knowledge, and replace it with his own “pulling it out of his ass” based system of knowledge.  Since leaving biology he’s apparently spent his time doing drugs and basking in the adoration of the new-agers who worship his every moronic utterance.  Anyone who has ever passed a high school level physics course knows that conservation of energy is the truest thing that ever was true, yet Sheldrake’s distain for science has reached such magnitude that he has denied even that. 

 74, if you’re really concerned about minority viewpoints on Wikipedia then please try to distinguish between those that are scientific and those that are anti-scientific.