Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,469
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 151:
Line 151: + + +
→Earnings: response
See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article.
See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:''Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public''
:Again, you've returned to the fiction that the entry states Michael Moore, a person, "bilked" the public. It explicit does not. It states an inanimate object "Michael Moore's films" have bilked the public. What could me more clear? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)