- Please note that this is not an endorsement of the current version. Please try to reach consensus. HenryS 20:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- To save a click, the contended statement is:
- And here is the discussion set forth in the edit comments:
- HelpJazz "the world need (sic) a new Anthony Comstock" is clearly an opinion and not a fact
- Bugler: We are not NPOV merchants like WP. We tell it as it is
- HelpJazz: per conservapedia:guidelines and conservapedia:commandments; NOT per NPOV, which doesn't exsist
- Bugler: <none>
- HelpJazz: unexplained reversion. I have made arguments, you are just edit warring
- Bugler: <none>
- HelpJazz: please please please stop edit warring. I have given my reasons and you give none
- (I would also like to point out at this point that there is a typo in the disputed section). I am perfectly willing to hear any arguments as to how a compulsory statement ("the world need (sic) a new Anthony Comstock) is at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article. THEN let's talk about some references for the claims made in such poetic language. HelpJazz 21:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, here goes
A. In an age when decent people are subjected to rising tides of filth through the mass media and internet
- an unexceptionable statement, I should have thought: just watch TV, open a 'popular' newspaper, or pick a 'celebrity' magazine off the shelf (and that's saying nothing about the widespread availability of overt pornography)
B. and when Hollywood values spread their insidious taint around the globe
- does anyone here actually deny the existence of HV and their insidious effect on popular morals? Well then.
C. America and the world need a new Anthony Comstock.
- taking A and B above into account, I should have thought that C was an obvious - indeed, the obvious - conclusion. It may not be the wording used in a Liberal encyclopaedia, but we do not, thankfully, endorse evil through spurious moraL equivalence and NPOV. The conclusion is a summation of the untold message in the article as a whole. The two stand together. Bugler 06:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I would also contest HelpJazz's assertion that (to paraphrase) he is making edits, while I am edit warring. I suggest, that based on his edit record yesterday, HelpJazz is targeting articles written by me for amendments which weaken or subvert their message. Why he should do so, I do not wish to speculate. All that I am doing is attempting to preserve the truth as it apears to me and many other Conservapedians, and to help build up this great edifice. Needless arguments like this are a delay and a distraction. Bugler 06:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
- Let's assume for a moment that A and B are true and verifiable (Commandment 1) and are attributed (Guidelines) with a citation (Commandment 2). Not only does C not follow (and have a typo), but itself is not true and verifiable, attributed with a citation (Commandment 1, Guidelines, Commandment 2, respectively). Now let's take away my faulty assumption; not only is C improper, but so are A and B.
- Bugler, look through your contributions: every time I revert something you wrote, I'm edit warring. Every time you revert something I wrote, I'm edit warring. Either stop using the term or be reasonable about it. Personal attacks are not relevant to this discussion; if you want to make personal attacks put them on my userpage, along with your other ones. Thank you. HelpJazz 13:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Looking through all my contributions would take too long. As for your arguments:
- In what way can 'A' possibly be incorrect? I don't need a citation for the statement that the sky is blue (or, in the UK, grey), or that water is wet.
- 'B': Hollywood Values and their offspring do spread an insidious taint. Can you disprove it?
- 'C'. Ergo, the world could well do with someone to reverse this tide of filth, and it therefore is not unreasonable to describe such a person as 'a new Anthony Comstock', given the career of the original Comstock.
- Thanks also for pointing out the typo. In a spirit of mutual assistance can I say that Not only does C not follow (and have a typo) should read Not only does C not follow (and has a typo). Bugler 14:29, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- You mean in the spirit of disrespect? Who cares if a talk page has a typo; the content of the talk page is not what's being discussed, it's the content of the article. You are only using it to discredit my character and avoid the real issue. Every time you reverted my edit, you reverted the typo, even after I pointed it out.
- You have added nothing to the discussion. It's not my burdon to disprove any of your statements, it's your burdon to adhere to the Commandments and the Guidelines. Instead of trying to prove to me that Anthony Comstock (which you can't, because it doesn't) why not try to prove that the statement follows the rules of this site (which you can't, because it doesn't). HelpJazz 15:08, 24 September 2008 (EDT) PS: try here; I thought there were more, but I didn't realize how many times you reverted me with no explanation.