User talk:LuckyLouie: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:LuckyLouie/Archive 2) (bot |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology.[[Special:Contributions/74.108.121.70|74.108.121.70]] ([[User talk:74.108.121.70|talk]]) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology.[[Special:Contributions/74.108.121.70|74.108.121.70]] ([[User talk:74.108.121.70|talk]]) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
: Can you point out [[Watseka Wonder|in our article text]] where it mentions "incompetency"? Again, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not be familiar with our editorial policies. As mentioned above, we do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie#top|talk]]) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
: Can you point out [[Watseka Wonder|in our article text]] where it mentions "incompetency"? Again, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not be familiar with our editorial policies. As mentioned above, we do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie#top|talk]]) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
OK, you will consistently reinstate EVERY pieces of criticism edited but you remove the ENTIRE section for praise? Why is that OK???? Sounds like someone is using their wiki gig as a place for personal bias. |
|||
Revision as of 17:38, 2 May 2016
 | LuckyLouie is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology.74.108.121.70 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you point out in our article text where it mentions "incompetency"? Again, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not be familiar with our editorial policies. As mentioned above, we do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, you will consistently reinstate EVERY pieces of criticism edited but you remove the ENTIRE section for praise? Why is that OK???? Sounds like someone is using their wiki gig as a place for personal bias.