[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Evil Dave--you're just being nit-picky and ridiculous, and not in a humorous way. Although if you were trying to be funny it would be, especially since it is zipping past me.

Newton's physics and math are not wrong--they are incomplete; as are _all_ scientific theories and sets of theories. They completely and accurately described all of his observations. He didn't address subatomic particles, near-light speed particles, etc. Incomplete, not incorrect.

Darwin's theories _were_ wrong, but they were only subtly wrong--his basic idea of species changing over time is only contested in religious terms, not scientific.

Etc. etc.

In any case, the wikipedia vs. established encyclopedia argument--nothing new here. We've both stated our cases, and as I noted: yours is well informed, and I respect your interpretation. I just do not share it. I have stated my own position a couple of times, so I will not repeat it.

I don't like you. I don't like your attitude. I don't like the way you try to win arguments instead of using argument to either persuade or uncover truth. However, you have a valid point that wikipedia articles should not be read naively. You yourself read them the way I advise people to read them--you check the citations, take everything with a grain of salt, and make your own conclusions.

I don't like you, but you are smart, and I respect you.

See you around.