This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phil Boswell (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 7 November 2005 ({{Slashdotted}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:11, 7 November 2005 by Phil Boswell (talk | contribs) ({{Slashdotted}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | On {{{date}}}, Eric Lerner was from a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
NPOV
The ideas which Lerner espouses are generally regarded as so outlandish by mainstream physicists that he is essentially ignored in that community.
Prove it.
-- Deleted it, it's completely unncessary in a discussion of his credentials (as the article now stands).
- No actually its a perfectly necessary and relevant little tidbit when talking about a total fucking nutter like Lerner.--Deglr6328 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think Lerner doesn't do himself any favors in the way he goes about things but I don't think he's a total nutter. His fusion technology is unproven, I know nothing about plasma so I'm not going to jump to conclusions (and that would be nonNPOV) so let's see what happens with that. Anyway you're probably calling him a nutter because of his BigBang views. I've noticed some people get very heated when the BigBang is questioned. I personally know cosmologists and they are quite open to discuss alternative models, so why Wikipedians and Slashdotters get so worked up is a mystery to me. Trious 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)