User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45314928-20200708232342: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
there are serious concerns when it comes to these stories (that were first raised over a decade ago...). so my side comment simply meant that as these were no major loss i was completely dumbfounded as to why it had taken so long to make a ruling. it hardly hurts my argument, as it wasnt part of my argument. | there are serious concerns when it comes to these stories (that were first raised over a decade ago...). so my side comment simply meant that as these were no major loss i was completely dumbfounded as to why it had taken so long to make a ruling. it hardly hurts my argument, as it wasnt part of my argument. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
so as it stands there are still concerns about the validity, no new evidence is likely to appear and these are not major losses for the site - so why has it taken a decade? | so as it stands there are still concerns about the validity, no new evidence is likely to appear and these are not major losses for the site - so why has it taken a decade? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200708232342-45314928]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:29, 27 April 2023
there are serious concerns when it comes to these stories (that were first raised over a decade ago...). so my side comment simply meant that as these were no major loss i was completely dumbfounded as to why it had taken so long to make a ruling. it hardly hurts my argument, as it wasnt part of my argument.
new evidence isnt going to magically appear, and i find the notion of asking on twitter ridiculous as the strong likelihood is that the writers wont even remember these ever existed (and even so it should have been done a long time ago and not a decade after the validity was called into question!).
so as it stands there are still concerns about the validity, no new evidence is likely to appear and these are not major losses for the site - so why has it taken a decade?
