RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

User talk:EssenceOfThought

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, EssenceOfThought!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hi there -- it looks like you took out some material for no real reason; also, you added a really broad and obvious statement that really broke up the flow of the article. But keep poking away, you'll figure out what works and what doesn't. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw that the source links were all at the bottom, save his own. Why should J.P go against the general placement of sources? As for the comments, they are just as valid criticisms as his own. Shouldn't we expect a higher standard of something which they propose to affect social policy? From studying Sociology that's the one thing that I've really seen. If I am wrong in expecting such standard, I apologize. I shall not question again. --EssenceOfThought (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of how valid the criticism was as a stylistic one: it was pretty blunt and obvious, and it sort of just sat there in the middle of the article. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)