Essay talk:CP on "theory"

A few comments... first, Doc, have you gone over this to make sure the "original" and your comments are all on the correct "side"? Before messing with it at all for structure/format I want to make sure the text is in the right places. Also, the CP header link should be a permalink to their article exactly as you are quoting it, since it might change. We should make the links in the CP version go to their site, and do you want to add some links on "our" side to your comments? Just some random thoughts. Thanks, human be in 15:56, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * JTL helped format it. It looks like it's correct. If you like it, feel free to fix the formatting.--PalMD-yada yada 15:58, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * The original article is so fucking crappy and redundant that I'm not sure if this works, but I thought I'd give it a try, since it keeps creeeping up in their arguments. Hey, I want me "e" back!--PalMD-yada yada 16:01, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, I've been following the conversation. I just wanted to make sure he got the two sides correct (though I guess I can compare to the CP original to double check that).  It might need to be renamed essay:cp on "scientific theory" as that is where their article is, not "theory" (that's a different article: cp:theory).  Any rearranging I do will just be to improve clarity and make your points line up with their wackosity.  If it needs it, anyway. Your "e"??? human be in 16:09, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I put too many in "creping" above. Ahh..that's better.--PalMD-yada yada 16:14, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

D
Shouldn't there be a refutation of the claim that an apple falling is 'the theory of gravity'? Because it's just gravity. Why the apple fell would be a theory of gravity, wouldn't it? MyaR 15:14, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Does that help?--PalMD-yada yada 15:19, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, its grammar could use a little help. :) I'll try to fix that later, when I'm not 'working'. MyaR 15:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Grammar-nazi.--PalMD-yada yada 15:22, 21 June 2007 (CDT)