Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Epistle to the Hebrews
::(EC) You accused me of an underhand tactic ("''AugustO waited for Andy to leave (and thus no longer be there to revert him)''" because of the nature of wikis? That's indeed not easy to understand. For the record: '''I did not wait for Andy to leave, I expected an immediate answer.''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
::(EC) You accused me of an underhand tactic ("''AugustO waited for Andy to leave (and thus no longer be there to revert him)''" because of the nature of wikis? That's indeed not easy to understand. For the record: '''I did not wait for Andy to leave, I expected an immediate answer.''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:41, 22 November 2012 (EST)
:::Fair enough - you didn't wait for Andy to leave that was a misstatement I take back. But as I've clearly pointed out you still edit warred - an disputing editor's presence does not determine whether it's an edit war or not, but I should not have stated that you specifically waited for him. (Also expecting immediate action on a wiki is silly)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:43, 22 November 2012 (EST)
:::Fair enough - you didn't wait for Andy to leave that was a misstatement I take back. But as I've clearly pointed out you still edit warred - an disputing editor's presence does not determine whether it's an edit war or not, but I should not have stated that you specifically waited for him. (Also expecting immediate action on a wiki is silly)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:43, 22 November 2012 (EST)
Thanks, it's nice to know that I'm just silly and not sneaky. At the moment we read:
:''the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.''
You took the editorial choice to call the idea that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it "''one plausible theory''". It isn't. It's utterly implausible. In fact it is a statement which violates at least three of the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]:
*It is not verifiable
*No source is stated
*It is just a personal opinion
The latter is obvious as no one shares Aschlafly's idea - and the reason for this: if you indeed read the epistle, you see that the author and the Son of God are different persons.
Crow-barring a personal, unsubstantiated opinion into an article on a Book of the Bible is something I have difficulties to swallow. For me, my actions are not so much edit-warring but reverting of vandalism. And I would expect anyone who is interested in the integrity of Conservapedia's articles on the Bible to revert such ludicrous edits, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 22 November 2012 (EST)