Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 28

message: Plunge has just made some rather bold additions to the article. I'm inclined to remove them, until they can be reviewed and reworded. The basic points seems to be twofold; 1) the article that was mistakenly published was rather weak, and contained no original research; 2) it is impossible to determine design without knowing aspects of the designer.
I suggest atleast rewriting the text for NPOV and stlye. For example, the simplistic addition of the words 'featuring supporting research' to the text about said article seems a bit out of place. -- Ec5618 13:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  With some reworking, and maybe some sourcing, it may very well be a good addition to the article.  Jim62sch 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Plunge has done some good work at Phillip E. Johnson. FeloniousMonk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's some obvious issues with your proposed edits of the peer review section. It glosses over the main point, that there are no peer reviewed ID papers, and implies that the Meyer  article (aka Sternberg controversy) was indeed published, as opposed to published then retracted, which you glaringly failed to mention. Omitting two key details like makes it comes off as a whitewash, not neutral. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree.  I mostly reordered the existing text, putting the summary of the objection first rather than last and starting to get some of the events described in the controversy in a more chronological and logical order.  There is no failure to mention the retraction: that's in fact how the paragraph concludes (as well as mentioning that the article was outside the normal subject matter of the journal).  The point that the article was a literature review which did not include new research is an important detail in the controversy, since the controversy primarily is over whether or not ID proponents are really producing experimentally justified work of their own.  In any case, it's still probably too sloppy and I'll wait and propose any further changes here first. Plunge 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, well I've made just a few tweaks to your content to account for my points and reinerted it in the article as a compromise solution. How's that? FeloniousMonk 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plunge

message: Now there's an unholy combination. :-) I've found this article very useful for describing the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, and I've blatantly stolen a chunk of it to flesh out a new subsection on Dianetics and pseudoscience. Comments would be very welcome, particularly if there's anything I've missed or misstated... -- ChrisO 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me...you might want (given Hubbard's Engram bit) to look at Neuro-linguistic programming as well. Jim62sch 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisO seems like a nice guy. Why would you do that to him? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good god, thirty references in the intro? 259 total? ChrisO may not live to tell the tale. -- Ec5618 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed your link to God - nice one! :). PiCo 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The higgs boson seems to be neihter falsifiable nor directly observable and I am not sure whether it ever will be :)  --Peter Menke 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ouch! And I thought I was going over the top adding 80 footnotes to Dianetics... -- ChrisO 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent design and Dianetics

message: Flagellum and blood clotting explained. Nomen Nescio 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "(Behe) said he has no idea how complex biochemistry actually came about, no suggestions for testing how intelligent design occurred, and he knows of no scientists who are planning such tests." Interesting. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link needs to be posted on the IC article, too. Jim62sch 17:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a registration page, it is not really anything new, so I vote against that.--KimvdLinde 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free registration! Nomen Nescio 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, regardless of the free registration, surely the information must exist elsewhere. If all else fails, the information may be included through a footnote, linking to the article, with a quote of relevant information. -- Ec5618 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On re-reading, note that Behe's still being evasive: those "are different questions" to his "arguing that some systems could not have evolved naturally". ...dave souza, talk 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the time to register (inconvenient, sure, but not a pain in the rear).  I read the article.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that the article contains information which should be in this WP ID article here.  Since the concept of ID is constantly being reframed by new scientific studies, and since the founders of ID propose that it is "science," then it is necessary to present new scientific studies, models, or conclusions, which have a bearing on ID as a whole - in order to give readers of WP a clear representation of what ID is, and what it is not.  This is simply NPOV.  I'll look for another source of this information that does not require registration.  If anyone else finds one, please do link it to the main article as a reference for the new material which should be included in this article. Now I'll go get to work. :D C.Melton 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised if you came up with anything scientific that is new. The number of peer-reviewed articles is close to zero, and the Dover trial made clear that there arguments did not withstand the scrutiny of the normal scirtific debate. And yes, they shift their positions. Dembski recently became more vocal about that common decent is part of ID, and although he has said more weekly before, he is getting stronger on this. Anyway, if you have good stuff to add, you are more than welcome to contibute it... --KimvdLinde 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, science is explaining the so-called examples of IC. As a result the IC argument is fading away. Nomen Nescio 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The registration seemed unusually demanding of address etc. - if it's linked, a registration required notice would be appropriate. The article and related sources show the opposite of "the concept of ID is constantly being reframed by new scientific studies" - proponents seem to be in self denial about studies that destroy the debating points ID has brought up, as when Behe refuses to see that homology shows possible precursors to the flagellum: "They're saying part of the flagellum looks like some other part of the cell," Behe said. "None of that says what the first step would be in trying to construct the flagellum." ...dave souza, talk 11:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  KimvdLinde, I said pretty much what you just said here.  I think you misunderstood me.  There is no new information on the side of ID to include, but rather on the side of research by scientists which address claims by ID.  It is the inclusion of this research, cited in the original sources, that I'd like to see here.  However, I don't have the time during the week to do this because of the demands of my job.  It will have to wait until the weekend.  C.Melton 21:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No more "irreducibly complex" argument

message: designerspeaks.com. Not encyclopedic, but still funny. -- Ec5618 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article

message: Quote from the article: "..., in an 1868 book,..."
Anyone know what book this statement is referring to? -- JosephCCampana 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Brocklesby's textbook "Elements of Physical Geography" (1868).  In it, Brocklesby states that "the physical phenomena of the world reveal in their harmonious action a unity of plan and purpose, and display in an infinite variety of ways the 'Power, Wisdom and Goodness of the Almighty Designer."  Don't have a page number for you, but he does not appear to have used the precise term "intelligent design".  Perhaps more accurately, Brocklesby appears to have stated the concept rather than the term itself--Kenosis 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article and footnotes Jim62sch 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, Kenosis and Jim! Thank you! -- JosephCCampana 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed from the article, since 1) it was relative not to the term but to the concept, and it was in the "Origins of the term" section, 2) Benapgar has insisted on a quote of Brocklesby using the term, a quote which Kenosis stated above doesn't exist. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "origins of the term" section 

message: I admit that I have followed this article only sporadically and am far less familiar with it than several of the regulars here. Nevertheless it is my impression that it has reached a very fine quality and should be considered for FAC.
One of the central criticisms on the previous FA candidature seemed to be that criticism of Intelligent design has an overly prominent place in the article. However, before it is resubmitted, everybody should be aware that that is a "feature not a bug" of this article. Given that Intelligent design has little if any acceptance in the scientific community, has been judged in a U.S. federal court of law as being faith disguised as science, and consists to a great degree of activism rather than research, it is totally unsurprising that there is much more and much more solid criticism than defense. It is predictable that the same sort of arguments will reappear in a future FAC, and it would be reasonable to discuss that foreseeable criticism here beforehand.  The fact remains that WP:NPOV#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone stipulates to "present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone". It might be worth discussing whether not to challenge the literal interpretation of this sentence of the NPOV policy itself, with the specific idea that a concept with few "pro" arguments that withstand criticism should be treated as a minority view even if it has many adherents. After all, we are not here to count numbers of believers, but to weigh arguments pro and arguments contra, and if the arguments contra are as overwhelming as in this case, it is plain impossible to give them an equal weight compared to the arguments pro. See also WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, and WP:NPOV#Giving "equal_validity". I am aware that some will consider this a slippery terrain, but I can't see how this article will ever get featured as long as people can come along and successfully argue that so and so many people believe in Intelligent design and their views are not appropriately represented here. Your ideas, please? Kosebamse 20:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, in my estimation, needs some more work before further consideration as a featured article.  Intelligent design, by its very nature, is an extremely difficult topic readily given over to many prejudices, such as religious, theological, philosophical, socio-political and scientific.  Given the difficulty and complexity of the topic, that some 300 million English-speaking people with internet access can edit it pretty much at will, and perhaps most importantly that of the Discovery Institue's co-opting of the term in the 1990's to further its agendas, the work on this article has been nothing short of astounding.  But it needs to have worked out a dependable way to express several important issues which interweave with one another, such as the difference between the concept and the term as it has been used by the Discovery Institute's affiliates, and the concept and the term as it has been used by others. I think it also needs to be shortened very substantially in the last few sections, perhaps with new articles added to explain the last few lengthy sections.  Kenosis 07:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FM makes a significant point about balancing brevity with completeness.  While the debate is often in good faith, it seems a strong likelihood that an FA candidacy would be scuttled by those with a vested interest in pushing ID viewpoints, no matter how good the article is.Kenosis 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for another attempt at FA status? 

message: Donald Simanek has made a useful publication available online Creationism and Intelligent Design: Fraudulent Pseudoscience. --Ian Pitchford 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful online publication

message: I appreciated seeing the further edits by BradC and ScienceApologist, and think they improve the article.  
Putting in a new subsection seems a reasonable way to approach this, but someone should change the name of the subsection because it's redundant (perhaps "unlikely vs. impossible" or something like that?)...Kenosis 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Unlikely versus impossible events"-- perhaps this too can be improved upon...Kenosis 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare versus unlikely events 

message: Interested editors, please note the revisiting of this old issue in newly inserted section 14.1 above, proposed by Grover_Cleveland, which proposes to delete "evolution" and replace it with "natural selection" in the introduction, as well as wherever there is an italicized reference to "evolution"Kenosis 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a piece there. --KimvdLinde 04:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID vs. Evolution, or ID vs. Natural Selection/Darwinism? 

message: An entertaining article in The Guardian about a row over evolutionism, atheism and the fight against ID. ...dave souza, talk 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: I would like to propose retitling the section "Defining intelligent design as science",  which does an excellent job of summarizing the scientific method and the Daubert criteria, as well quickly dealing with how ID does or does not fit.  The section of course concludes that it does not fit at all.
The title is potentially misleading.  The title was perhaps more accurately and neutrally as put by a recent edit by someone, and then more recently reverted, which is: "Can Intelligent design be defined as science?"
I suggest further consideration of a more NPOV way of titling this section.Kenosis 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a question for a heading is poor style. Headings are meant to describe the content they contain, not elicit replies or be used for rhetorical effect. The heading "Defining intelligent design as science" is accurate in that it directly descibes the the subsequent content, it represents no one position on the issue, allowing the reader to decide what it means. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed FM, understood...Kenosis 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining intelligent design as science 

message: i added this caveat to the first paragraph, because the ideas of ID (including the name) of course go way back, and it read strangely to me to lump all of them together under the Discovery Institute, which seems to have successfully appropriated the ID banner nowadays... Petesmiles 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to the original.  We have an entry pointing the user to the dismbig page for other uses/meanings.  No need for further adjectives to describe leading proponents.  Jim62sch 13:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong objection to Jim's reversion either.  The article does make it plain upon reading it further.  Note, though, that the incentive for this kind of qualification is increased by the inclusion of the 'first modern usage' paragraph in the "Origins of the concept" section...Kenosis 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a difference between the Design argument and Intelligent design. I think you confuse the two of them. --ScienceApologist 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if we elaborate upon that in the introduction this wouldn't happen so often? (FeloniousMonk erased my recent attempt to do that though.) I think Cosmology (metaphysics) or Teleological argument is generally what people who have this criticism are looking for. See if what I put for the disambiguation  and on the disambiguation page . Petesmiles or 70.156.42.46 would that have helped any?--Ben 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The arguments by Plato, Aristotle, et al, are not ID -- they are the "design agument" and the "cosmological argument" combined.  They are covered in the body of the article, and would serve no purpose in the opening.  Intelligent Design as used now has a very specific meaning, the definition of which is given in the first sentences (including references -- n.b. -- it is the responsibility of the reader to use the links).  That some people think it means other things is not our problem as it is merely a case of perception: we simply cannot combat every perception (or misperception as the case may be) in the introduction.  Jim62sch 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern age reference 

message: FORTUNE magazine reports "It's the evolved Mac, and it's intelligently designed". ..dave souza, talk 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This just seems to be low quality word-play. JoshuaZ 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, it's not just simple word play, it's almost clever... an apple...the Apple..Garden of Eden...Intelligent Design.  :) Jim62sch 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be the result of some politically correct editing. The author probably originally just wrote: "It's the evolved Mac." And then the editor came along and said: "You can't do that, what about our creationist readers?" And then they just simply added the "intelligent design" phrase... Fedor 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Apple is affiliated with the DI so now we have to change the wording in the intro from "all" to "most".    ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 08:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PoT?, don't give anyone any ideas.  :) Jim62sch 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another version of intelligent design?

message: Came across this , hope it is not a repost. Nomen Nescio 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ID 101

message: Dover trial to be a movie FeloniousMonk 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope that it proves to be a lot more historically accurate than the original Inherit the Wind.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the final court scene is very close to the actual trial transcript.  •Jim62sch• 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inherit the Wind, The Next Generation

message: This conversation has been moved to the Townes subpage. This is due to the continuing disruptive nature of Benapgar's choice of method here, violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT while trying to force an issue:  Additionally, these recent personal attacks have been listed at his ongoing user conduct RFC, and I suggest that our responses to further WP:NPA incidents, disruption and trolling be limited to reporting them at at the RFC. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In moving it, however, you also moved debate relevent to the topic at hand.  I won't revert, but I don't think that's appropriate.  Izuko 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any discussion can continue on the subpage. The history here shows that there's very little interest in what Benapgar proposes, considering he's been campaigning the same sort of changes since last fall, and even less serious debate on his proposed changes. What there's no shortage of though is disruption, and that justifies the move to a subpage. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 5 years of history showing "little interest", Felonious. Or perhaps you mean little interest from yourself and your Usenet buddy flamewarriors who've hijacked this article. --Ben 21:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ben, again, No personal attacks please. Thank you. JoshuaZ 23:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usenet. --Ben 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, again, no personal attacks. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wedge strategy & Teaching the controversy

message: Don't feed the troll. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking With Trolls? ..dave souza, talk 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Let me make a bold stab at why I think that Ben hates this article. I think he believes that "Intelligent Design" as a concept free from the constraints of Neo-Creationism should, in principle, exist. However, we have run into the problem of verifiability and original research. In particular, intelligent design has become a "hot button" issue and has been adopted as a cause-celebre for the Religious Right in their inexorable push towards revival in the United States/world as they know it. To that end, the Discovery Institue and their Center for Science and Culture have been the major banner carriers for this. They have managed to consolidate diverse researchers, academics, anti-Darwinists, and naysayers into a group that works in lock-step to try to Wedge a controversy into the academic and cultural imaginations. What has ended up happening is that they have defined a movement that is exclusive and elitist as a counter to the exclusivity and elitism they decry in mainstream science.
Enter Ben who likes the idea of evidence in the universe for "design" but cannot stand the apparent religious overtones of Johnson/Dembski etc. He wants to see his view validated. Unfortunately, here is not the place because "intelligent design" is not up for grabs as a concept anymore. It is effectively codified in the media, in the literature, and by the Discovery Institute as a particular perspective and a particular agenda. By the standards of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CITE, this article lays out these facts and arguments -- ignoring the perspective of Ben. However, it is required by WP:OR and to some extent WP:VAIN that we do this.
Ben, to quote those crazy revivalists, "let your light so shine before men", but don't do it here at Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not changing the world. If you want to see the Discovery Institute's nonsense trashed, do it by publishing, getting famous in your critiques, and co-opting the term. Starting at Wikipedia as seen in the undue weight section of WP:NPOV is not the place to do it. I look forward to you blasting DI's work in a forum other than this one.
--ScienceApologist 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pretty accurate to me, SA.  And I agree that trashing DI's work would be splendud, but it really does need to be done elsewhere.  I'm sure all of us have one scientific theory or other with which we do not fully agree, but arguing its validity on Wikipedia is not going to change anything.  Jim62sch 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it to my talk page ScienceApologist. If you want to talk about what you think I believe, that's the place to do it. Making comments about editors here on the talk page is inappropriate. --Ben 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony.  Jim62sch 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is quite ironic that SA would chew me out for discussing what I think are the motivations and beliefs of editors here, and then go do exactly the same thing in reference to me.--Ben 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also wonder whether Ben realizes that ScienceApologist's above comment seems to be based on a large amount (possibly too much) of WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I don't care. Why is SA discussing my beliefs? He should discuss them with me if he really wants to. Especially seeing as how he got some of them wrong, and he could easily have cleared that up beforehand. Beforehand, as in "before he stepped up onto a soapbox to declare his thoughts about my beliefs to everyone except me."--Ben 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazingly enough Ben is vaguely correct. Comments about other editors beliefs are not really germane to the talk page (even if those comments are some of the most good-faith assuming comments Ben will get). By all means, take it to his talk page. JoshuaZ 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Ben hates this article

message: Hey, nobody talks about the intelligent coding that has been decoded by the "Da Vinci code".--tequendamia 19:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor are we likely to on this page. Jim62sch 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) That isn't relevant to this article or its talk page 2) In any event, that book had only slightly more to do with reality than star wars, so I don't know why you think anything was actually "decoded" in it. JoshuaZ 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One good fiction deserves another. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL @ ID. --Ben 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent coding 

message: This site would fit under the ID Perspectives links - Reasons.org
:While the site appears notable enough (Alexa rank is around 200k), it doesn't actually appear to be an ID site. It is "an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior." That's fundamentalist Christian creationism, and doesn't belong in the ID article, IMO. --Ashenai 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) : That is an OEC site, not an ID site. JoshuaZ 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I missed the fact that the site was Old Earth Creationism, sorry. I think you're assuming I am biased against the site; I don't believe this is so. I think that it is a good site, quite representative of the creationist side of the argument, and I would be happy to add it to another article (Creationism, perhaps) in a heartbeat. I just don't believe it belongs here. --Ashenai 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That fact is that it is OEC, not ID. Now, given the "big tent" nature of ID, the borderline isn't always clear (some IDist, indeed even some fellows of the DI, such as Paul Nelson are in fact YECs). But the fact is that this link simply isn't relevant to the topic at hand. JoshuaZ 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add this link 

message: User:172.196.11.239, User:172.190.98.116, User:172.196.125.230 and User:172.193.9.65 are likely sockpuppets of User:Benapgar who is now permanently blocked for chronic WP:NPA violations. As such, they are blocked as well. Please don't feed the trolls people. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think they are Ben's socks? JoshuaZ 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're walking in Benapgar's footsteps. They all appeared within 24 hours of Benapgar being permanently blocked making the exact same arguments for the exact same changes using the same tendentious method. FeloniousMonk 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, even the syntax and grammar and vocabulary were the same. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My error in judgment for taking WP:AGF a bit too seriously.  Take care for now, and thanks to the admins for bringing this back under some reasonable control...Kenosis 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hmm, mine too apparently. JoshuaZ 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NP. You can always report any suspected sockpuppets being used to evade a block at WP:AN/I. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And here I was bedinning to think I was the only one who noticed.  ;)  Sorry Ken and Josh, but AGF is a nice principle, but when an anon starts off bad-mouthing the article and sounds like they're picking up on a previous point AGF goes out the window faster than liver and onions.  Geez, I even dropped a few hints.  Oh well, I'll be less subtle next time.  :)  •Jim62sch• 21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:172.196.11.239]], [[User:172.190.98.116]], [[User:172.196.125.230]] & [[User:172.193.9.65]]