Difference between revisions of "Talk:Young's Law"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rob Carson (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I say retained; the law, regardless of supposed accuracy, is clearly meant in jest, is extremely amusing to say the least, and is referenced almost constantly, at least in the NE circuit -- Joe Feldman | I say retained; the law, regardless of supposed accuracy, is clearly meant in jest, is extremely amusing to say the least, and is referenced almost constantly, at least in the NE circuit -- Joe Feldman | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe just edited to make the historical context it originated in clearer? It does retain currency as a reference. --[[User:Rob Carson|Rob Carson]] ([[User talk:Rob Carson|talk]]) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:25, 31 December 2023
This doesn't seem to me like it's in great taste, but I have seen it referenced (jokingly) relatively recently. Do we think it should be deleted anyway? Changed so as to present some version of the same idea in some other way? Retained? —Jonah (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2023 (CST)
I say retained; the law, regardless of supposed accuracy, is clearly meant in jest, is extremely amusing to say the least, and is referenced almost constantly, at least in the NE circuit -- Joe Feldman
Maybe just edited to make the historical context it originated in clearer? It does retain currency as a reference. --Rob Carson (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (CST)