Talk:Intelligent design/Yqbd's peer-review arguments

Peer-reviewed journals, publications

In reference to

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing. However, there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.

the following

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals

should be changed to:

Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

according to

Page 88 of 139

disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,

17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).

because

articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.

is missing.--Yqbd 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is not correct about

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing. However, there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.

since there is a difference between

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

and

there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.

in that

articles supporting intelligent design that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals

is not always

peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design

?--Yqbd 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make. Also, stop edit warring. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was such a pain to read, and I still can't understand what exactly do you want. Reinis^talk 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion: Try one edit suggestion at a time. And try to explain yourself. In English.--Filll 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journals, publications 2

I'd like to add

However, there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.

after

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

--Yqbd 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

History

• The source that lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design was presented.
• Assertions were made about the source and the primary source.
• The assertions were challenged and questioned.
• Kenosis moved the discussion to another page.
• The discussion was moved back.
• We are waiting for support of assertions against the source.

You are waiting. ornis (t) 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For your response. --Yqbd 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For

• The source lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design. --Yqbd 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Against

Are there any reasons against the addition?

Unreliable primary source, completely unacceptable nonsense. See WP:POINT and WP:DE, and stop what looks remarkably like trolling on your part. ... dave souza, talk 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is unreliable about the primary source? --Yqbd 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

DI has a track record for lies and misinformation. As such they are a reliable source, for nothing but their beliefs and statements. ornis (t) 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, answer yes or no. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it completely unacceptable nonsense? --Yqbd 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POINT and WP:DE, and stop what looks remarkably like trolling on your part. --Yqbd 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything incorrect about the addition?

The proposed addition would be incorrect (i.e., not consistent with the many WP:Reliable sources on which this article is based). All of this is discussed in keeping with WP:NPOV in the section explicitly titled Peer review . The Kitzmiller court made clear in its decision that Behe had admitted on the stand that there are no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design. Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." That the Discovery Institute continues to make this claim of peer review, and that ID proponents have set up their own "peer review" consisting only of ID supporters is also already stated in that section, along with other pertinent facts relating to peer review of ID-related literature. ... Kenosis 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, answer yes or no. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have your answer. It doesn't matter what they list, because it's a lie. ornis (t)

Please, state your answer clearly with a yes or no so we may continue. --Yqbd 02:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, show us how what they list is a lie. --Yqbd 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, give us an example of lies in what they list. --Yqbd 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." equal "no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design"? --Yqbd 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." a subset of "no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design"? --Yqbd 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is not a reliable source. The claim as phrased is thus not well-sourced. Now, if you can get a reliable source that says such peer review articles exist that might make a difference. JoshuaZ 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, answer yes or no. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you seem to be missing the point. If I made a list on a blog of sources i claimed were "peer reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design" it wouldn't be relevant per WP:RS or WP:V whether they were in "peer reviewed etc" because my blog isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not Truth, but even if you play this game, for starters, a glance at the list strongly indicates the answer is either "no" or at best highly arguable. For example, at the top of the list are various articles from "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education" which were not peer reviewed (academic presses don't have peer review in the same way that journals do, so unless you are stretching the term past almost any level of meaning, those aren't peer reviewed). Other articles there have other problems. For example, the Well's paper on centrioles appears Biology Forum which routinely contains essentially speculative material (from my understanding) and furthermore doesn't in any way invoke ID other than as a buzzword (the notion that things that look like turbines might be turbines has nothing to do with ID and evolution has no problem with that). That paper has additional problems with it. That should suffice for now. And Yqbd, please keep in mind that when people keep not replying to a question and try to explain to you that the question is irrelevant you may want to consider why the question might not be relevant, instead of just parroting it. JoshuaZ 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, glance again and list examples, you think does not "strongly indicates the answer is either "no" or at best highly arguable." --Yqbd 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you support that "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education" were not peer reviewed? --Yqbd 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum" a peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design?

Please, sign your answer under Yes or No. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

Which of the following articles from this list do you agree are or are not articles supportive of Intelligent Design published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

I am especially curious about your thoughts on D. A. Axe's articles since he says his peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "adds to the case for intelligent design" [1] and also Ø. A. Voie's article since it's from 2006 which is after Behe's statement from 2005. --Yqbd 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From talk origins

“ Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). ”

You might find the rest of the article enlightening. ornis (t) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think are reliable or verifiable? --Yqbd 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think are not reliable or not verifiable? --Yqbd 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles

• Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

• John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

• S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

• M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

• D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

• W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

• M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

• D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

For why Meyer (2004), Behe and Snoke (2004), Lönnig and Saedler (2002), Chiu and Lui (2002) & Axe (2000) don't count, see Talk Origins Archive. John A. Davison is a notorious crank, and Rivista di Biologia is a notorious publisher of fringe and pseudo-science. Hrafn42 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the remainder (i.e. Voie (2006), Axe (2004), Denton et al (2002)), I would suggest that Yqbd explain why they are supportive of ID. The Discovery Institute's say-so isn't good enough, as the Discovery Institute are known liars, and nothing even close to resembling WP:RS.Hrafn42 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He can't, he's been blocked for 72 hours. There's already a subpage for the rest of his screed, this should probably go there as well. ornis (t) 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

None of these are "articles supportive of intelligent design" for the simple reason that none of them test any hypotheses related to intelligent design. Since they don't test ID-related hypotheses it is impossible for them to support intelligent design. You can't support a hypothesis that you aren't testing. 66.188.11.15 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

copied from Talk page

Which of the following articles from this list do you agree are or are not articles supportive of Intelligent Design published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

I am especially curious about your thoughts on D. A. Axe's articles since he says his peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "adds to the case for intelligent design" [2] and also Ø. A. Voie's article since it's from 2006 which is after Behe's statement from 2005. --Yqbd 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From talk origins

“ Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). ”

You might find the rest of the article enlightening. ornis (t) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From CreationWiki's response

“ This only serves to prove the claim. It is interesting how at no point does Talk Origins actually refute the fact that intelligent design had been published in peer-reviewed journals. ”

--Yqbd 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think are reliable or verifiable? --Yqbd 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which do you think are not reliable or not verifiable? --Yqbd 06:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles

• Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

• John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

• S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

• M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

• D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

• W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

• M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

• D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

Comments

For why Meyer (2004), Behe and Snoke (2004), Lönnig and Saedler (2002), Chiu and Lui (2002) & Axe (2000) don't count, see Talk Origins Archive. John A. Davison is a notorious crank, and Rivista di Biologia is a notorious publisher of fringe and pseudo-science. Hrafn42 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the remainder (i.e. Voie (2006), Axe (2004), Denton et al (2002)), I would suggest that Yqbd explain why they are supportive of ID. The Discovery Institute's say-so isn't good enough, as the Discovery Institute are known liars, and nothing even close to resembling WP:RS.Hrafn42 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He can't, he's been blocked for 72 hours. There's already a subpage for the rest of his screed, this should probably go there as well. ornis (t) 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals", "Journal of Molecular Biology", and "Journal of Theoretical Biology" are a peer-reviewed scientific journals? --Yqbd 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is Albert Voie's article, Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent. --Yqbd 23:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some comments on Albert Voie's article. --Yqbd 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

None of these are "articles supportive of intelligent design" for the simple reason that none of them test any hypotheses related to intelligent design. Since they don't test ID-related hypotheses it is impossible for them to support intelligent design. You can't support a hypothesis that you aren't testing. 66.188.11.15 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of peer-reviewed scientific journals

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

Does anyone have a list of all peer-reviewed scientific journals? --Yqbd 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of the following are peer-reviewed scientific journals? --Yqbd 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
• Rivista di Biologia/Biology (Hrafn42 objects)
• Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (Hrafn42 objects)
• Protein Science
• Annual Review of Genetics
• International Journal of Fuzzy Systems
• Journal of Theoretical Biology
• Journal of Molecular Biology

Please read WP:POINT. You aren't making one, but you're certainly trying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. --Yqbd 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And please quit trying to make a point. It's not going to happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this discussion. --Yqbd 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I'm getting flashbacks to ProtoCat. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this discussion. --Yqbd 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: none of us particularly care whether these journals on your list are "peer-reviewed scientific journals" or not. For you to demonstrate that there are peer-reviewed articles supportive of ID, you must demonstrate, for each article, the following:

1. That the journal has a credible editorial and peer-review process (this leaves out Rivista di Biologia/Biology)
2. That this process was followed (this leaves out the Meyer article)
3. That the journal is competent for the subject matter of the article (this leaves out Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington for the Meyer article)
4. That the article is genuinely supportive of ID

Come up with competent evidence and arguments on these points, for a specific article, and we will listen to you (though there's an excellent chance that we'll disagree with you). Simply repeat DI propaganda, and you will get ignored. Hrafn42 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any examples of anyone demonstrating those about any journals supporting anything? --Yqbd 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want those demonstrations because of something else written about the journals you haven't objected to? --Yqbd 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: I have no interest in getting into a lengthy discussion on minutiae with you. Given your source for the list of articles/journals (the thoroughly dishonest DI), a high degree of skepticism is perfectly warranted. Unless and until you are prepared to provide competent evidence and arguments on the above points, for specific articles, I have nothing further to say to you on this issue. Hrafn42 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" would be acceptable to you without having to convince you of something you disagree with in the first place? --Yqbd 05:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: what part of "I have no interest in getting into a lengthy discussion on minutiae with you" did you fail to comprehend? If you cannot work out the meaning of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" for yourself, then I have no interest in further discussion with you. This is a wikipedia talk-(sub)page, not a remedial philosophy tutorial. Hrafn42 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If working out the meaning of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" isn't so difficult, you shouldn't have a problem giving examples of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" that you would accept, so I don't have to find out later that you don't accept certain "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" because of x, y, and z. --Yqbd 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So, which of the above journals are you already OK with? Do you know anything about the journals you haven't objected to or do we have to show "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" for all of them because DI happened to add them to their list? --Yqbd 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unless and until you are prepared to provide competent evidence and arguments on the above points, for specific articles, I have nothing further to say to you on this issue." Hrafn42 06:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Which of the following are peer-reviewed scientific journals"

That isn't something we can decide by a vote - please see WP:NOR. The statement is sourced. But, when it comes down to it, Yqbd's entire question is a red herring - the issue isn't where they were published - the issue is that there is absolutely no science supporting intelligent design. There's no way to examine intelligent design scientifically. Until someone comes up with a methodology by which to study ID, there can be no scientific tests of ID. As it stands, it's non-science. That doesn't mean it can never be science...someone may come up with a method to do so. But that would be a major development in the philosophy of science. If it ever happens, you'll hear about it. Until then, there's nothing to discuss. 66.188.11.15 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources, flogging a dead horse, and disruption

We already have literally dozens of reliable notable and neutral sources, starting with a federal court ruling, that say there are no peer reviewed articles supporting or arguing for ID published in any of the notable, mainstream scientific journals. A fact backed up by anyone who takes the time to search the academic databases. On the other hand, Yqbd has only the Discovery Institute's bogus public relations list of allegedly "peer reviewed" ID articles as a source. A source which: 1) Is a wholly partisan source that has no credibility or even a pretense of being neutral. 2) Found to be verifiably false by a federal court and sources such as the New York Times, Salon, etc. 3) Already has these issues with it covered in this Wikipedia article.

I'll caution Yqbd that there are literally dozens of similar specious objections just like his in the talk page archives, each raised the same tired old source and claims, and each found absolutely zero traction because the source is partisan and makes a verifiably false claim and cannot overcome the more notable, neutral, and accurate sources provided. By ignoring these past discussions and the consensus that resulted from each and edit warring over the same Yqbd is flogging a dead horse and becoming disruptive. Having been blocked once already, Yqbd shows no sign of letting up. If this disruption here of the article proper continues, I'll be taking the steps set out at WP:DE to seek a topic ban for Yqbd. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cut and paste or point us to these "literally dozens of similar specious objections". --Yqbd 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: "Feel free" to actually do some leg-work for yourself for a change instead of simply expecting those you are arguing with to hand everything to you on a platter. Your unwillingness or inability to actually do any of your own research is part of what makes the consensus regard you as an unambiguous liability. You quite simply bring nothing new. Hrafn42 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit." WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground --Yqbd 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy if you became a "leech" who did "not devot[e] time to edit[ing]" -- it is the fact that you insist on editing without bothering to find reliable sources to back up your changes that annoys. Hrafn42 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also feel free to say there are "literally dozens of similar specious objections" and not show examples and expect others to know what you are talking about. --Yqbd 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should we? For each question of yours that we answer, we simply get more specious questions. So why bother? Hrafn42 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)