Difference between revisions of "User talk:Andy"
(→references) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:I'm not using "Pro-nuclear" for the PR shops either, because they basically work for whoever pays them... --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 16:06, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT) | :I'm not using "Pro-nuclear" for the PR shops either, because they basically work for whoever pays them... --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 16:06, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 20:37, 28 April 2006
I didn't put the Alexander quote in -just the Coley quote - I'm trying to put as many online references in as possible!!
Andy, have a look at this: http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php?title=Talk:Supporters_of_Nuclear_Energy&rcid=4882 --David 20:22, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Hi Andy, we seem to have managed to choose the same time to start work on finishing the navbar! You'll notice from Recent Changes that i created Category:Civil nuclear industry shortly before you created Category:Pro-nuclear companies. The reason i didn't call it the latter is that these companies are surely by definition pro-nuclear, since they are nuclear industry companies. Therefore to say that BNFL, for example, is 'pro-nuclear' seems a little like stating the obvious... Cheers, --Neoconned 15:39, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT)
- OK - take you point - I'll go with what you are doing!!
- Cheers, Andy. Damn, i'll have to finish the job now.... suckered! :P --Neoconned 15:53, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT)
It's ok thanks, it won't take long, that last comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek --Neoconned 16:00, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT)
- I'm not using "Pro-nuclear" for the PR shops either, because they basically work for whoever pays them... --Neoconned 16:06, 13 Mar 2006 (GMT)
