Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + +
a way out of this hell
I've looked at some of your other edits, you take a highly negative/critical stance on the Adultery page. This site has a tendency to block users who disagree with the conservative point of view in an attempt to keep liberal ideas off the site. If you want to remain on the site, I would suggest discussing reinstatement with RobS or Aschafly. If you apologize and promise not to be critical of the conservative viewpoint, they may reinstate your account. Please contact me if I can be of any more assistance.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
I've looked at some of your other edits, you take a highly negative/critical stance on the Adultery page. This site has a tendency to block users who disagree with the conservative point of view in an attempt to keep liberal ideas off the site. If you want to remain on the site, I would suggest discussing reinstatement with RobS or Aschafly. If you apologize and promise not to be critical of the conservative viewpoint, they may reinstate your account. Please contact me if I can be of any more assistance.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:It also helps if you show some willingness to ''label'' the alternate views as coming from sources other than, say, the Bible. For example, a view that [[adultery]] is equally wrong in a man as in a woman might not correlate with any particular Bible ''verse'', but you might find a religious ''author'' (or statement of doctrine/policy) which condemns male and female equally.
:Something like this would go down well:
:*Although the Old Testament stressed female virtue more than that of males, most modern Americans came to regard adultery as equally wrong in both sexes (insert source here). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:29, 1 June 2007 (EDT)