It looks like rule #17 is there to weed out crank posts. For example... "look gravity doesn't exist!" and stupid things like that.
leopold99: Actually, I think the article I referenced was published before the one your referenced, that misquoted him. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. What? A flat-out denial by the man concerned is not good enough for you? What more do you want? Probably because nobody bothered complaining about the article in question. The line in dispute is, after all, a tiny piece of an entire article. I'm quite sure you haven't read the entire article, either. I haven't forbidden you from posting anything. I have, however, informed you that if you repost this quote again, which you know to be false, you will be banned. While we're on that subject, you never got back to me regarding your request to be permanently banned. Do you still want to proceed with your request, or do you wish to retract it now? Recall that I asked you to confirm your intention. Not very ridiculous, it seems. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire article. There are many transitional fossils, of course.
what's up james? can't find the issue of "science" where it admits to misrepresenting the person in question? you accused "science" of misrepresentation, i asked you to prove it by posting said issue where it retracted. you have posted nothing but delaying tactics since.
i want the only thing that matters namely the issue where "science" admits its mistake. you can not POSSIBLY be serious. its all over the internet where said person retracted, except in "science". most of these "retractions" i have seen are sourced from arrowsmiths website, not from the person in question and not from "science" BTW i DID read the entire article. not according to "science" quit frankly james i do not believe you anymore, i have no faith in your objectivity. let's hear it people. let's hear it for the science site administrator that will take the word of personal websites over that of bonafide science sources. what a worthless joke you are james.
leopold99: This discussion is pointless. It is established that F. Ayala does not hold the views you attributed to him, regardless of what was written in Science by somebody else. You will therefore cease propagating your lie on sciforums. This conversation is now over.
i didn't attribute ANYTHING to ayala, the national academy for the advancement of science did james. i did the checking for you and "science" NEVER printed any retraction regarding this matter.
OK, can we ban this idiot according to rule #17? He stated that cold fusion was proven and oil will be free: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108971
After reading that I would agree with Syzygys; however, I think the proper way to do it is hit the report button.
So you get banned when you continue to fail to support false claims, and also you get banned when you fail to retract false claims?
"---the Earth is 6000 years old ---X touched and cured the lepers ---Y stopped the Earth spinning,etc Sure they can be disproven...." How? I'm as Atheist as they come, but how can these things, things that we didn't observe, be disproven?
You don't need to observe something to prove it. You can look at the evidence that is available and prove it that way. For instance nobody observed the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, but through the evidence it was proven that O. J. did not commit the murders.
