There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Free energy (pseudoscience)
I put a NS ref http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16522224.400-energy-unlimited.html to clear a "fact" tag. If anybody wants a full copy of the NS article I've got a subscription and could put it up. (Though it copyright - so maybe I shouldn't, thoughts?)--Bob_M (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
FAST[edit]
Nicely done Bob I put the fact tag in with the rest but I didn't expect such a fast response. Keepgoats 15:50, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks - but I didn't know it was that fast. I just saw the tag and remembered the article from long long ago.--Bob_M (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Random gibberish[edit]
No such thing as rational or not,idts. ceptu, think/can think any is ok — Unsigned, by: 73.214.93.110 / talk
Would a Wikiversity text be useful to this discussion?[edit]
...as an external link, perhaps? ...