115
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 967:
Line 967: + + + + + + + +
→Things for you to note
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later
2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression the potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.
3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.
4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)