User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-6032121-20181104204754/@comment-6032121-20181105150414: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-6032121-20181104204754/@comment-6032121-20181105150414'''
I know; that's precisely why I included the warning. But as I outline in the rest of the post the statement would be pretty groundbreaking if true, so I think we really should try to get to the bottom of it. And the intent of this thread is as much to check its accuracy as it is to discuss what to do next — indeed, as I argued, the precedents are such that the ''main'' question is whether the statement was accurate, as the course of action would seem pretty clear-cut if it is.
I know; that's precisely why I included the warning. But as I outline in the rest of the post the statement would be pretty groundbreaking if true, so I think we really should try to get to the bottom of it. And the intent of this thread is as much to check its accuracy as it is to discuss what to do next — indeed, as I argued, the precedents are such that the ''main'' question is whether the statement was accurate, as the course of action would seem pretty clear-cut if it is.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20181104204754-6032121/20181105150414-6032121]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 15:35, 27 April 2023

I know; that's precisely why I included the warning. But as I outline in the rest of the post the statement would be pretty groundbreaking if true, so I think we really should try to get to the bottom of it. And the intent of this thread is as much to check its accuracy as it is to discuss what to do next — indeed, as I argued, the precedents are such that the main question is whether the statement was accurate, as the course of action would seem pretty clear-cut if it is.