[Meglobob]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:
Evil Dave: sounds like you are well informed and have your mind made up. I'll respect that for the most part, but I can't let a few items go.

Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old. In hindsight, he was nutty as a pancake. A complete fruitcake.

Darwin's works are over 70 years old. From the modern perspective, his crazy theories don't stack up compared to intelligent design and spontaneous generation.

Herodotus' Histories are also over 70 years old. Worthless garbage. I am unsure why they are still published. I have no idea at all why they are regarded so well by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Frankly, I am amazed you have a limit of 70 years. That seems so old fashioned. In this marvelous digital age, if it is older than an hour or two, I regard it as pap-smear. For example, your post from yesterday--especially your quote from Helmut von Moltke (for whom there is a very nice article on Wikipedia if you are interested)--is junk and "doesn't have to meet any criteria for correctness." It's garbage. Outdated. Digital archeology. Musings and speculations on history and information theory from literally hours ago!! Gah!

I'll also pick on your childish eye rolling. To me, that immediately means you are a dick. No matter how correct you are, you are still a dick. You could be 100% right, but you would still be a dick.

To paraphrase Churchill: 'Tomorrow I will be wrong, but you will still be a dick.'

Note to anyone other than Evil Dave: I read wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. I just do not immediately pan them due to methodology. Like everything, I am skeptical of them--but I actually like the methodology. If you want to check something, you are free to check the citations and meta-article--as Evil Dave did. You are free to choose what you believe in a wikipedia article, based on your own researches. That makes it a good reference, imo.

Am I a dick too?