On 10/17/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
The fact that is was deleted
in the first place means (in 99.9% of cases) that
there was consensus to
delete.
99.9% of statistics are wrong. Bogus statistics aside, why is you
rationale an excuse for the repetition of the false claim that the
content of an article should not be taken into consideration in
undeletion, which has taken such a hold on VFU that we have ridiculous
situations like this that require someone like me to take his
reputation into his own hands simply to secure the undeletion of a
perfectly good article about a published author who has appeared on
Nova documentaries as an expert?