Talk:Liberal redefinition

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Liberal redefinition as edited by Gulik5 (Talk | contribs) at 13:31, 5 April 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should we put a little description next to each term, so that we know how they are being redefined? HelpJazz 23:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Rainbow? I'm confused. I reiterate my request: instead of a list, could we provide some explanation? HelpJazz 18:41, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I second that. Without explanations, this article is meaningless.--Frey 00:11, 25 February 2008 (EST)

After trudging through the liberal articles, I think the 90/10 rule should be modified to ban these ever present articles. Angband 14:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I second that. Have a look at some of the articles I made earlier today. Perhaps some users would be better spent making an encyclopedia rather than making a fool of themselves with whiny articles like this. LeaningRight 14:07, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Considering how many articles there are on the subject, this place ought to be named Liberalpedia. --Gulik5 13:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)


Hey, whats wrong with Category:Liberals? Maupiti 09:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Please explain

I feel that this article would best benefit our readers if the items on the list were explained. A simple format ("X has been redifined to mean Y, as seen in Z reference") would suffice. I'd do it myself, but I guess I've been living so long in the redefined world that I only know one definition for most of these words. Thanks. HelpJazz 12:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)