[WikiEN-l] auto-biography

[tarquin]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
> The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false 
> steps and original ideas which led nowhere.  Their historical value is 
> what makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their 
> theories. Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not 
> ridiculed, and not obsessively disproved.  (Remember, the burden of 
> proof for any scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't 
> carried that burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as 
> possible.)  Most of these ideas can be adequately covered in a single 
> page, and take much less space than what is used arguing about them.  
> Why should contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than 
> those from the last century?

There is nothing wrong with us having articles on cutting-edge theories, 
*that have previously been published and subjected to some sort of peer 
review*

The problem is when a lone nut wants to make a mirror of his web page on WP