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.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
The following users participating in the CP discussions about the topic experienced blocks (Please correct the list, these are the ones i have noticed):
By Andrew Schlafly Himself: Jirby, Raul, Argon, MickA, Kallium, KimEide, Stitch75, BenHur, Drek, Carolyn
By others: Toffeeman, AlexaJ, DRamon, DinsdaleP, YoungA
Emphases in reposted/quoted letters ...
The letters contain emphasised text (in boldface). It would be good to see some clarification in the article on whose emphases they are; if they are not Lenski's, they should probably either be clearly identified as non-original or edited out. If they are not part of the original Lenski material, a brief explanation of the intended significance of the added emphases might be worth considering.
- I see now that in looking straight at it I somehow missed the explanation that the bolding marked material censored from CW. Mea maxima culpa.
"By refusing to include the link to RationalWiki in Prof. Lenski's second reply, Mr. Schlafly did more than any other individual to raise RationalWiki's profile on the net."
I know I'm late to the party, but this article is brilliant. I feel amazing how after that Schlafly still came for more and did not bury his head on the sand until the dust had settled. --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)