User contributions for 99.231.217.26

19 December 2010

• 05:5605:56, 19 December 2010 diff hist +233‎ Talk:WikiLeaks ‎No edit summary

22 November 2010

• 04:3504:35, 22 November 2010 diff hist +926‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎No edit summary

18 November 2010

• 07:0907:09, 18 November 2010 diff hist +798‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎No edit summary

17 November 2010

• 07:0307:03, 17 November 2010 diff hist +35‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎ →‎This is not a fallacy
• 05:4705:47, 17 November 2010 diff hist +408‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy ‎ →‎Quality control, philosophical sources vs. other
• 04:2704:27, 17 November 2010 diff hist +456‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy ‎ →‎Quality control, philosophical sources vs. other: new section
• 04:2204:22, 17 November 2010 diff hist +1,145‎ User talk:Reaper Eternal ‎ →‎bare assertion fallacy: new section
• 04:2004:20, 17 November 2010 diff hist +429‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎ THIS IS NOT A FALLACY, read the fricken source
• 04:1804:18, 17 November 2010 diff hist +511‎ User talk:Reaper Eternal ‎No edit summary
• 04:0204:02, 17 November 2010 diff hist −1,649‎ Bare assertion fallacy ‎ Oh my god I have explained this edit in the comment & discussion. No wonder experts avoid wikipedia like the plague; you are reverting what I wrote in like 10 seconds, is my knowledge that worthless? Tag: references removed
• 03:5903:59, 17 November 2010 diff hist −1,276‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎No edit summary
• 03:5803:58, 17 November 2010 diff hist +142‎ User talk:Alansohn ‎ →‎bare assertion fallacy: new section
• 03:5703:57, 17 November 2010 diff hist +112‎ User talk:Reaper Eternal ‎No edit summary
• 03:5703:57, 17 November 2010 diff hist +63‎ User talk:99.231.217.26 ‎ →‎November 2010
• 03:5703:57, 17 November 2010 diff hist +1,183‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎ →‎This most certainly is not a fallacy. Every argument would be fallacious if it were! I couldnt find any philosophy text that had this as a fallacy. The writing book&dictionary cited are totally wrong!: new section
• 03:5503:55, 17 November 2010 diff hist +975‎ Talk:Bare assertion fallacy ‎No edit summary
• 03:5203:52, 17 November 2010 diff hist −1,685‎ Bare assertion fallacy ‎ I did put a note explaining! See discussion page for more. Tag: references removed
• 03:5003:50, 17 November 2010 diff hist −1,685‎ Bare assertion fallacy ‎ This most certainly is not a fallacy. Every argument would be fallacious if it were! I couldnt find any philosophy text that had this as a fallacy. The writing book&dictionary cited are totally wrong! Tag: references removed