--- Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
Hi,
Did you read what I wrote on the Talk page of this
article ?
Didier made a NPOV summary of the long POV text of
Athyvement, then Athyvement
reverted Didier's text into his own text. So I just
put Didier's text back.
So, I didn't remove any information. And I think
that, if some controversial
information are given, the source has to be
provided.
Yann
Good evening Yann,
Problem is : where do the controversies really lie ?
:-(((
When you remove a whole paragraph, because you say it
is controversial, could you at least state which point
(or points) exactly "is" controversial, so others
could help finding facts supporting or refuting the
claim ?
Do you reject the fact the crab was fished ? Or the
location it was taken ? Or the fact the crab was
picked up for analysis by ecologists ? Or the fact
Criirad did the analysis ? Or the contamination level
of 600 Bq found in the crab ? Or the amount of
radioactivity in some drinking water sources in France
? Or the official maximum level of radioactivity
allowed in food by french law ? Or the fact there is
no place on Earth without at least a bit of natural
radioactivity ? Or ....what ?
I agree it is not written the right way, but if you
just remove the text without saying which fact appears
false to you, how are we supposed to know where to
look for answers ?
I left you a list some hours ago. Please, comment Yann
:-) ant
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com