Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Once again quoting the same article. (You have read this article correct?)
"Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved."
Peiser himself looked over the wikipedia entry and said he did not see the changes. Had there been any sort of miscommunication between Solomon and Peiser over the content of the Wikipedia article would not Peiser have noticed when he checked for the corrections?
Clearly Peiser thought the Wikipedia article was wrong... and was looking for Solomon's corrections which did not appear. |
Perhaps Solomon detailed what he had edited so that Peiser would know what to look for (and obviously failed to find).
I defy you to find a portion of any of the incarnations of that Wikipedia article that have text that could be characterized as saying that "Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Oreskes&diff=prev&oldid=201071198
|
And failing to find it he would of found what the wikipedia entry did say no?
How could he check for the information without reading what actually says?
That explination is really grasping for straws... and quite honestly pretty intellectually dishonest.
Assuming i have your expination correct which is "Peiser looked for what Solomon wrote, uet nothing else to see whether he actually agreed with what was presented there or not."
